Post on 19-Jul-2020
1
Jockey Club Age-Friendly City Project
Baseline Assessments and Training and Professional Support
(Three Districts in the Second Phase)
Baseline Assessment Report
Southern District
2017
Submitted by
Sau Po Centre of Ageing
The University of Hong Kong
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
2
Acknowledgement
Initiated and funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust
Sau Po Centre on Ageing The University of Hong Kong
2F The Hong Kong Jockey Club Building for Interdisciplinary Research
5 Sassoon Road Pokfulam Hong Kong Tel (852) 2831 5210
Website ageinghkuhk Email ageinghkuhk
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
3
Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
2 INTRODUCTION 5
21 Project Background 5 22 District Characteristics 5 23 Previous Age-friendly City Works in the District 7
3 METHODOLOGY 9
31 Questionnaire Survey 10 311 Participants 10 312 Measures 10 313 Data Analysis 11
32 Focus Group 11 4 RESULTS 12
41 Questionnaire Survey 12 411 Participant characteristics 12 412 Perceived Age-friendliness 16 413 Sense of Community 18 414 Age Group Comparison 18 415 Housing Type Comparison 20 416 Sub-district Community Comparison 21
42 Focus Group Study 23 421 Participant characteristics 23 422 Physical Environment 24 423 Social and Cultural Environment 27 424 Communication Community and Health Services 29
5 CONCLUSION 31
6 REFERENCE 33
7 APPENDICES 35
Appendix 1 District Maps 35 Appendix 2 Questionnaire 37 Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire 55 Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide 57
Sau Po Centre on Ageing The University of Hong Kong
2F The Hong Kong Jockey Club Building for Interdisciplinary Research
5 Sassoon Road Pokfulam Hong Kong Tel (852) 2831 5210
Website ageinghk Website ageinghkuhk Email ageinghkuhk
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
4
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Initiated and funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust the
Jockey Club Age-Friendly City Project aims to move Hong Kong towards an age-
friendly city This report describes the baseline assessment work done in the Southern
district from April 2017 to July 2017 as part of the project The objective of the
baseline assessment was to understand the needs of the Southern district in preparing
the district to become more age-friendly The baseline assessment comprised a
quantitative survey study and a qualitative focus group study A total of 710
questionnaire surveys were collected from the four sub-district communities of (1)
Pokfulam (薄扶林) (2) Aberdeen (香港仔) (3) Ap Lei Chau (鴨脷洲) and (4)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley and Shek O (黃竹坑 海灣 赤柱及石澳) A
total of six focus group interviews were conducted
The typical participant of the questionnaire survey was a married woman aged
over 65 years who has resided in the district for 29 years living alone or with a
spouse in a privately owned apartment using elderly centres with fair perceived
health retired with a monthly income of less than HK$6000 but still felt financially
sufficient The age of the building is usually over 30 years with elevator although
residents would still need to take the stairs to go out Majority of elderly residents in
the district expected themselves to age in place in the coming 5 years However
should their health deteriorate the percentage of elderly residents with such
expectation dropped considerably
Participants perceived the Southern district to be age-friendly in general
Comparing the degree of perceived age-friendliness across different domains ldquosocial
participationrdquo scored the highest while ldquohousingrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health
servicesrdquo scored the lowest The sense of community is strong particularly in terms of
sense of membership that is the sense of belonging to the district The older the
resident the stronger the sense of community and perceived age-friendliness Among
those aged 60 years or above most (837) used services or participated in activities
provided by elderly centres Ap Lei Chau residents reported the highest level of
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community compared with those living in the
other three sub-district communities Participants living in private housing had
significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains They also
have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp accessibility
facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic participation
compare with the public housing group
Results from this baseline assessment suggested solid groundwork with a
reasonably good sense of community and perceived age-friendliness in the district
Future efforts toward making the district more age-friendly should build on the
existing infrastructure and network using an asset- and strengths-based community
development framework Specific recommendations were provided for each of the
eight domains in the World Health Organizationrsquos Age-friendly City framework
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
5
2 INTRODUCTION
21 Project Background
Hong Kong is undergoing rapid population ageing The population aged 65
years or above is projected to increase from 15 of the total population in 2014 to
26 by 2029 and to 33 (331) by 2064 1 This means that by 2064 1 in 3 people
in Hong Kong will be an elderly Population ageing is accompanied by a shrinking
labour force and a growing dependency ratio Defined as the number of persons aged
lsquounder 15rsquo and lsquo65 and overrsquo per 1000 persons aged 15 to 64 the dependency ratio is
projected to rise from 348 in 2014 to 716 in 2064 2 These demographic changes carry
significant implications for the demand and costs of public services Therefore
building an age-friendly city (ldquoAFCrdquo) will help meet the needs of older people
enabling them to live active independent and good-quality lives in the community
An age-friendly city would also facilitate the development of Hong Kong as a better
society
The Sau Po Centre on Ageing of The University of Hong Kong (ldquoHKUrdquo)
received a donation from The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust in 2017 to
conduct the Jockey Club Age-Friendly City Project (ldquoJCAFC Projectrdquo) in the Eastern
Southern and Wong Tai Sin districts In all three districts the study is implemented
in two phases from March 2017 to September 2017 (Phase 1) and from October
2017 to December 2019 (Phase 2) Phase 1 of the project consists of three parts The
first and second parts are the baseline assessment of district age-friendliness by using
questionnaire surveys and focus group interviews respectively Focus group
interviews with district residents aim to gain in-depth understanding of their views on
age-friendliness in their communities A report of district-based recommendations and
implementation proposals is generated based on these findings The third part in
Phase 1 is to organize an ldquoAge-friendly City Ambassador Programmerdquo in the districts
to familiarize ambassadors with the knowledge and methods in building an age-
friendly community Phase 2 of the project consists of collaboration with key district
stakeholders and provision of professional support from the HKU team to develop
implement and evaluate district-based age-friendly city projects for enhancing district
age-friendliness
This report presents baseline assessment findings from Phase 1 The objective
of the baseline assessment was to understand the needs of the Southern district in
preparing to become more age-friendly
22 District Characteristics
The Southern district is a diverse district mixed with commercial industrial and
residential areas To date the district maintains a large proportion of its natural
sceneries and traditional customs The Aberdeen Fish Market Typhoon Shelter and
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
6
Shek O Village are unique cultural heritages in the Southern district The Ocean Park
located in Wong Chuk Hang is a world-renowned theme park which attracts over 77
million visitors from all over the world each year With an area of about 4000
hectares the Southern district comprises 17 sub-district communities in the District
Council division namely (1) Aberdeen (香港仔) (2) Ap Lei Chau East (鴨脷洲東)
(3) Ap Lei Chau North (鴨脷洲北) (4) Lei Tung I (利東 I) (5) Lei Tung II (利東 II)
(6) South Horizons East (海怡東) (7) South Horizons West (海怡西) (8) Wah Kwai
(華貴) (9) Wah Fu South (華富南) (10) Wah Fu North (華富北) (11) Pokfulam (薄
扶林) (12) Chi Fu (置富) (13) Tin Wan (田灣) (14) Shek Yue (石漁) (15) Wong
Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) (16) Bays Area (海灣) and (17) Stanley amp Shek O (赤柱及石
澳)
According to the Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department 4 the population
of the Southern district is approximately 274994 as of 2016 which is around 37 of
the total population of Hong Kong The proportion of elderly population aged 65
years or above was 166 of the total district population The district ranks third
among other districts in its percentage of elderly population and is higher than the
Hong Kong average of 159
Table 21 shows the domestic household characteristics of the Southern district
According to the 2016 Hong Kong Population By-Census 4 the total number of
domestic households was 85505 while the average household size was 30 Among
these district residents approximately 612 (n= 149258) participated in the labour
force The median monthly domestic household income was HK$30000
Table 21 Domestic household characteristics of Southern district in 2016
Total number of domestic households 85505
Average household size 30
Type of housing Private Permanent Housing (2011) 5 499
Median monthly domestic household income HK$30000
Median monthly domestic household rent HK$2110
Median monthly domestic household mortgage payment and
loan repayment HK$10000
There is a mixed composition in terms of housing type in the Southern district
Approximately 499 of Southern district residents live in private permanent housing
5 At the same time there are a total of 8 and 9 housing estates for public rental
housing (ldquoPRHrdquo) and home ownership scheme (ldquoHOSrdquo) respectively 6 Accounting
for all types of housing the median monthly domestic household rent was HK$2110
and HK$10000 for mortgage payment and loan repayment Regarding the provision
of elderly centres and health care services the district has a total of 10 elderly centres
2 district elderly community centres (ldquoDECCsrdquo) 7 and 8 neighbourhood elderly
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
7
centres (ldquoNECsrdquo) 8 4 public hospital
9 3 general outpatient clinics
10 and 1 elderly
health care centre 11
In recent years the Southern district also saw the implementation of various
large-scale projects that improved the quality of life for district residents These
include the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park (鴨脷洲風之塔公園) in 2009 which
offered additional outdoor areas for recreational activities 12
and the commencement
of the MTR South Island Line (East) on December 2016 which enhanced convenience
for district commuters 13
23 Previous Age-friendly City Works in the District
To develop an age-friendly community the District Council (ldquoDCrdquo) non-
governmental organizations (ldquoNGOsrdquo) the commercial sector and local elderly
residents in the Southern district have made concerted efforts in promoting the
concept of AFC and in improving the community environment in response to
changing needs of elderly residents The following documents several of these
initiatives
The Southern DC actively promotes the concept of AFC in the community as
evidenced by several noteworthy initiatives For example The Working Group on
Rehabilitation and Age-friendly Community in the Southern district (ldquothe Working
Grouprdquo) implemented the ldquoAge-friendly City Planrdquo in collaboration with the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited (ldquothe Associationrdquo) and proposed a
series of activities and programmes to promote the concept of AFC 14
In 2016-17 the Southern DC obtained a grant of $53000 from the Funding
Scheme for Age-friendly Community under the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the
Elderly Commission With the above funding the Working Group the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited and the Southern Age-friendly and Safe
City Group co-organized various age-friendly related activities including the ldquo2016-
17 Southern District Age-friendly and Safe City Plan ndash Community Care for
Dementiardquo (ldquoThe Planrdquo) The Plan was implemented between August 2016 and
January 2017 and included activities such as recruitment and training of elderly
ambassadors community inspections and sharing sessions by these elderly
ambassadors Under the Plan a ldquoSouthern District Age-friendlyrdquo logo was awarded to
government departments management companies of residential estates local
organisations and commercial tenants in the district in recognition of their outstanding
age-friendly facilities and services Furthermore local organisations and commercial
tenants were invited to sign up for the dementia friendly list so as to help families in
search for their missing dementia-affected family members 15
To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative (ldquoHKSARrdquo) Region the Celebration for All project co-
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
8
ordinated by the Home Affairs Department and implemented by NGOs was launched
in the Southern district on 10 June 2017 Participating NGOs including the Hong
Kong Southern District Community Association the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services the Caritas Community Centre - Aberdeen and the Tung
Wah Group of Hospitals in Southern district as well as different volunteer teams The
NGOs and volunteers brought love and care to the community by conducting home
visits to single elderly households and to better understand their living conditions and
needs Gift packs were also distributed to the elderly to share the joy of the 20th
anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR 16
Other NGOs in the Southern district have also actively initiated and participated
in age-friendly community projects For example the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services advocated for improvements in transportation roads
pavements markets and other facilities in the district and organized a public forum
「2013-2014 南區長者友善安全社區計劃mdash我想擁有的社區設施」(translated
herein ldquo2013-2014 Elderly Friendly amp Safety Scheme My Most Desired Community
Facilities in Southern Districtrdquo) in February 2014 and invited members from different
government departments to listen and collect views from the elderly on how to
improve existing facilities in the district 17
AKA also worked with different elderly service organizations to enhance
awareness among district residents of the age-friendly community concept With
sponsorship from Fu Tak Iam Foundation (傅德蔭基金) and Ho Cheung Shuk Yuen
Charitable Foundation ( 何張淑婉慈善基金 ) AKA Southern District Elderly
Integrated Services Office launched a 3-year project「『智愛同行』長者及護老
者支援計劃」from January 2016 to December 2018 to enhance the living quality for
mild cognitive impairment (ldquoMCIrdquo) elderly frail elderly and their caretakers and to
promote understanding and care for elderly with dementia in the Southern district 18
For the commercial sector the HSBC Community Partnership Programme
ldquoBringing People Togetherrdquo facilitated various district-based community initiatives to
foster a more inclusive and harmonious society in Hong Kong With the funding in
2014 the Hong Kong Southern District Womens Association launched the「學習處
世道 擕手展共融」 (ldquoCare for Others Community Projectrdquo) for residents in the
Southern district Through workshops and lectures different groups (eg elderly and
youngster) will learn the needs of others thereby engendering greater tolerance and
care for others and ultimately mutual respect and support Community participation
will further encourage participants to mutually support each other thus building a
stronger community network in their district 19
The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals also used the fund applied from HSBC in
2014 for a「愛 綠」行動 (ldquoI-Green Actionrdquo) Project The project used gardening
therapy as a medium to promote mental health by increasing the environmental
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
9
awareness of elders and formerly mentally-ill patients Moreover through helping
them leverage their strengths improve their abilities and self-confidence 19
Elderly residents in the Southern district have also made remarkable efforts in
civic participation and have been actively involved in various platforms In particular
the Southern Elderly Concern Group (「南區長者關注小組」 ) holds regular
meetings and collects views from district residents on various elderly-related issues
and then relays these views to various government departments and District
Councillors Over the years representatives of this concern group had successfully
advocated for more than 20 age-friendly items in the district the installations of
barrier-free ramps covers over bus tops and warning signs and tapes over hazardous
walkways in various venues across the Southern district to name a few
As a result of these concerted efforts put forth by various district stakeholders
the Southern district became one of the first districts selected to participate in the
2008 Age-friendly Community Project under the Hong Kong Plan of Action on
Ageing20
To foster the development of the Southern district as an ldquoAge-friendly
Communityrdquo the Working Group and the Southern District Healthy amp Safe
Association Limited made an accreditation application to World Health Organisation
(WHO) on 28 July 2016 and was informed on 14 September 2016 that the Southern
district was successively admitted as a member of the WHOrsquos ldquoGlobal Network for
Age-friendly Cities and Communitiesrdquo (ldquoGNAFCCrdquo) rendering it the fourth
accredited community in the territory 21
Overall it is evident that various community stakeholders are actively pursuing
projects and initiatives aimed at promoting the concept of age-friendliness and
improving community environment These experiences form a solid foundation upon
which future age-friendly endeavors can be built
3 METHODOLOGY
The baseline assessment consisted of a quantitative (questionnaire survey) study
and a qualitative (focus group) study The questionnaire survey was conducted to
understand the sense of community and perception on age-friendliness of the district
among residents of four sub-district communities in the Southern district The focus
group study was conducted to capture in-depth opinions of the residents on age-
friendliness of the district with reference to the eight domains of the Age-friendly
City as defined by the World Health Organization (ldquoWHOrdquo)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
10
31Questionnaire Survey
311 Participants
Participants recruited for the questionnaire survey were usual residents in the
Southern district aged 18 years or above Exclusion criteria were foreign domestic
helpers or individuals who are mentally incapable to participate in the study
Participants were recruited from four meaningful sub-district communities
(Table 31 amp Appendix 1) The communities were derived a priori according to
features and characteristics of the district and validated by stakeholders who are
familiar with the district
Table 31 Sampling sub-district communities for the Southern district
Sub-district communities Constituency Areas
Pok Fu Lam 薄扶林 (PFL)
Wah Kwai 華貴
Wah Fu (South amp North) 華富 (北及南)
Pokfulam 薄扶林
Chi Fu 置富
Aberdeen 香港仔 (AB) Aberdeen 香港仔
Tin Wan 田灣
Shek Yue 石漁
Ap Lei Chau 鴨脷洲 (ALC) Ap Lei Chau (Estate amp North) 鴨脷洲 (東及北)
Lei Tung (I amp II) 利東(I amp II)
South Horizons (East amp West) 海怡 (東及西)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O 黃竹坑 海灣
赤柱及石澳 (WBSS)
Wong Chuk Hang 黃竹坑
Bays Area 海灣
Stanley amp Shek O 赤柱及石澳
The study aimed to recruit a total of 500 participants comprising primarily
elderly residents aged 60 or above as well as residents aged between 18 and 59 The
study recruited participants from multiple sources including DECCs NECs relevant
NGOs and advertisement and snowball referrals from stakeholders A predetermined
sample size corresponding to the population in each sub-district was set to improve
overall representativeness
312 Measures
The questionnaire survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews and self-
administration (in a small number of cases who preferred the latter mode) to cover the
following areas (Appendix 2)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
11
(i) Sociodemographic Information
These included participantsrsquo age gender marital status education living
arrangement housing type employment and income Self-reported health was
captured using an item for assessing subjective health from the SF-12 Health
Survey 22
(ii) Community Care
These included caregiving engagement with elderly centres use of mobility
tools and ageing-in-place expectations
(iii) Perceived Age-friendliness
Perceived age-friendliness of the district was assessed using 61 items developed
based on a local adaptation of the WHOrsquos Age-friendly City Framework and
Guidelines Participants were asked to rate their perceived age-friendliness
along eight categories namely outdoor spaces and buildings transportation
housing social participation respect and social inclusion civic participation
and employment communication and information and community support and
health services
(iv) Sense of Community
Sense of community including needs fulfilment group membership influence
and shared emotional connection were measured using the 8-item Brief Sense of
Community Scale 2324
313 Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify patterns in sociodemographics
community care perceived age-friendliness and sense of community across
communities Further analyses were performed to test the difference in perceived age-
friendliness and sense of community among age groups and sub-district communities
using linear regression method
32Focus Group
A total of six focus groups comprising 40 participants were conducted in the
Southern district five with elderly residents aged 60 or above and one with district
residents aged between 18 and 59 Views from participants on the perceived age-
friendliness of the district were solicited following the procedure based on the WHO
Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol25
Focus groups
typically took place in DECCs with each group comprising 6 to 7 persons and lasting
approximately 15 to 2 hours Two to three AFC domains pertinent to WHOrsquos age-
friendly framework were explored in each session All focus groups interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
2
Acknowledgement
Initiated and funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust
Sau Po Centre on Ageing The University of Hong Kong
2F The Hong Kong Jockey Club Building for Interdisciplinary Research
5 Sassoon Road Pokfulam Hong Kong Tel (852) 2831 5210
Website ageinghkuhk Email ageinghkuhk
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
3
Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
2 INTRODUCTION 5
21 Project Background 5 22 District Characteristics 5 23 Previous Age-friendly City Works in the District 7
3 METHODOLOGY 9
31 Questionnaire Survey 10 311 Participants 10 312 Measures 10 313 Data Analysis 11
32 Focus Group 11 4 RESULTS 12
41 Questionnaire Survey 12 411 Participant characteristics 12 412 Perceived Age-friendliness 16 413 Sense of Community 18 414 Age Group Comparison 18 415 Housing Type Comparison 20 416 Sub-district Community Comparison 21
42 Focus Group Study 23 421 Participant characteristics 23 422 Physical Environment 24 423 Social and Cultural Environment 27 424 Communication Community and Health Services 29
5 CONCLUSION 31
6 REFERENCE 33
7 APPENDICES 35
Appendix 1 District Maps 35 Appendix 2 Questionnaire 37 Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire 55 Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide 57
Sau Po Centre on Ageing The University of Hong Kong
2F The Hong Kong Jockey Club Building for Interdisciplinary Research
5 Sassoon Road Pokfulam Hong Kong Tel (852) 2831 5210
Website ageinghk Website ageinghkuhk Email ageinghkuhk
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
4
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Initiated and funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust the
Jockey Club Age-Friendly City Project aims to move Hong Kong towards an age-
friendly city This report describes the baseline assessment work done in the Southern
district from April 2017 to July 2017 as part of the project The objective of the
baseline assessment was to understand the needs of the Southern district in preparing
the district to become more age-friendly The baseline assessment comprised a
quantitative survey study and a qualitative focus group study A total of 710
questionnaire surveys were collected from the four sub-district communities of (1)
Pokfulam (薄扶林) (2) Aberdeen (香港仔) (3) Ap Lei Chau (鴨脷洲) and (4)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley and Shek O (黃竹坑 海灣 赤柱及石澳) A
total of six focus group interviews were conducted
The typical participant of the questionnaire survey was a married woman aged
over 65 years who has resided in the district for 29 years living alone or with a
spouse in a privately owned apartment using elderly centres with fair perceived
health retired with a monthly income of less than HK$6000 but still felt financially
sufficient The age of the building is usually over 30 years with elevator although
residents would still need to take the stairs to go out Majority of elderly residents in
the district expected themselves to age in place in the coming 5 years However
should their health deteriorate the percentage of elderly residents with such
expectation dropped considerably
Participants perceived the Southern district to be age-friendly in general
Comparing the degree of perceived age-friendliness across different domains ldquosocial
participationrdquo scored the highest while ldquohousingrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health
servicesrdquo scored the lowest The sense of community is strong particularly in terms of
sense of membership that is the sense of belonging to the district The older the
resident the stronger the sense of community and perceived age-friendliness Among
those aged 60 years or above most (837) used services or participated in activities
provided by elderly centres Ap Lei Chau residents reported the highest level of
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community compared with those living in the
other three sub-district communities Participants living in private housing had
significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains They also
have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp accessibility
facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic participation
compare with the public housing group
Results from this baseline assessment suggested solid groundwork with a
reasonably good sense of community and perceived age-friendliness in the district
Future efforts toward making the district more age-friendly should build on the
existing infrastructure and network using an asset- and strengths-based community
development framework Specific recommendations were provided for each of the
eight domains in the World Health Organizationrsquos Age-friendly City framework
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
5
2 INTRODUCTION
21 Project Background
Hong Kong is undergoing rapid population ageing The population aged 65
years or above is projected to increase from 15 of the total population in 2014 to
26 by 2029 and to 33 (331) by 2064 1 This means that by 2064 1 in 3 people
in Hong Kong will be an elderly Population ageing is accompanied by a shrinking
labour force and a growing dependency ratio Defined as the number of persons aged
lsquounder 15rsquo and lsquo65 and overrsquo per 1000 persons aged 15 to 64 the dependency ratio is
projected to rise from 348 in 2014 to 716 in 2064 2 These demographic changes carry
significant implications for the demand and costs of public services Therefore
building an age-friendly city (ldquoAFCrdquo) will help meet the needs of older people
enabling them to live active independent and good-quality lives in the community
An age-friendly city would also facilitate the development of Hong Kong as a better
society
The Sau Po Centre on Ageing of The University of Hong Kong (ldquoHKUrdquo)
received a donation from The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust in 2017 to
conduct the Jockey Club Age-Friendly City Project (ldquoJCAFC Projectrdquo) in the Eastern
Southern and Wong Tai Sin districts In all three districts the study is implemented
in two phases from March 2017 to September 2017 (Phase 1) and from October
2017 to December 2019 (Phase 2) Phase 1 of the project consists of three parts The
first and second parts are the baseline assessment of district age-friendliness by using
questionnaire surveys and focus group interviews respectively Focus group
interviews with district residents aim to gain in-depth understanding of their views on
age-friendliness in their communities A report of district-based recommendations and
implementation proposals is generated based on these findings The third part in
Phase 1 is to organize an ldquoAge-friendly City Ambassador Programmerdquo in the districts
to familiarize ambassadors with the knowledge and methods in building an age-
friendly community Phase 2 of the project consists of collaboration with key district
stakeholders and provision of professional support from the HKU team to develop
implement and evaluate district-based age-friendly city projects for enhancing district
age-friendliness
This report presents baseline assessment findings from Phase 1 The objective
of the baseline assessment was to understand the needs of the Southern district in
preparing to become more age-friendly
22 District Characteristics
The Southern district is a diverse district mixed with commercial industrial and
residential areas To date the district maintains a large proportion of its natural
sceneries and traditional customs The Aberdeen Fish Market Typhoon Shelter and
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
6
Shek O Village are unique cultural heritages in the Southern district The Ocean Park
located in Wong Chuk Hang is a world-renowned theme park which attracts over 77
million visitors from all over the world each year With an area of about 4000
hectares the Southern district comprises 17 sub-district communities in the District
Council division namely (1) Aberdeen (香港仔) (2) Ap Lei Chau East (鴨脷洲東)
(3) Ap Lei Chau North (鴨脷洲北) (4) Lei Tung I (利東 I) (5) Lei Tung II (利東 II)
(6) South Horizons East (海怡東) (7) South Horizons West (海怡西) (8) Wah Kwai
(華貴) (9) Wah Fu South (華富南) (10) Wah Fu North (華富北) (11) Pokfulam (薄
扶林) (12) Chi Fu (置富) (13) Tin Wan (田灣) (14) Shek Yue (石漁) (15) Wong
Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) (16) Bays Area (海灣) and (17) Stanley amp Shek O (赤柱及石
澳)
According to the Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department 4 the population
of the Southern district is approximately 274994 as of 2016 which is around 37 of
the total population of Hong Kong The proportion of elderly population aged 65
years or above was 166 of the total district population The district ranks third
among other districts in its percentage of elderly population and is higher than the
Hong Kong average of 159
Table 21 shows the domestic household characteristics of the Southern district
According to the 2016 Hong Kong Population By-Census 4 the total number of
domestic households was 85505 while the average household size was 30 Among
these district residents approximately 612 (n= 149258) participated in the labour
force The median monthly domestic household income was HK$30000
Table 21 Domestic household characteristics of Southern district in 2016
Total number of domestic households 85505
Average household size 30
Type of housing Private Permanent Housing (2011) 5 499
Median monthly domestic household income HK$30000
Median monthly domestic household rent HK$2110
Median monthly domestic household mortgage payment and
loan repayment HK$10000
There is a mixed composition in terms of housing type in the Southern district
Approximately 499 of Southern district residents live in private permanent housing
5 At the same time there are a total of 8 and 9 housing estates for public rental
housing (ldquoPRHrdquo) and home ownership scheme (ldquoHOSrdquo) respectively 6 Accounting
for all types of housing the median monthly domestic household rent was HK$2110
and HK$10000 for mortgage payment and loan repayment Regarding the provision
of elderly centres and health care services the district has a total of 10 elderly centres
2 district elderly community centres (ldquoDECCsrdquo) 7 and 8 neighbourhood elderly
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
7
centres (ldquoNECsrdquo) 8 4 public hospital
9 3 general outpatient clinics
10 and 1 elderly
health care centre 11
In recent years the Southern district also saw the implementation of various
large-scale projects that improved the quality of life for district residents These
include the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park (鴨脷洲風之塔公園) in 2009 which
offered additional outdoor areas for recreational activities 12
and the commencement
of the MTR South Island Line (East) on December 2016 which enhanced convenience
for district commuters 13
23 Previous Age-friendly City Works in the District
To develop an age-friendly community the District Council (ldquoDCrdquo) non-
governmental organizations (ldquoNGOsrdquo) the commercial sector and local elderly
residents in the Southern district have made concerted efforts in promoting the
concept of AFC and in improving the community environment in response to
changing needs of elderly residents The following documents several of these
initiatives
The Southern DC actively promotes the concept of AFC in the community as
evidenced by several noteworthy initiatives For example The Working Group on
Rehabilitation and Age-friendly Community in the Southern district (ldquothe Working
Grouprdquo) implemented the ldquoAge-friendly City Planrdquo in collaboration with the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited (ldquothe Associationrdquo) and proposed a
series of activities and programmes to promote the concept of AFC 14
In 2016-17 the Southern DC obtained a grant of $53000 from the Funding
Scheme for Age-friendly Community under the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the
Elderly Commission With the above funding the Working Group the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited and the Southern Age-friendly and Safe
City Group co-organized various age-friendly related activities including the ldquo2016-
17 Southern District Age-friendly and Safe City Plan ndash Community Care for
Dementiardquo (ldquoThe Planrdquo) The Plan was implemented between August 2016 and
January 2017 and included activities such as recruitment and training of elderly
ambassadors community inspections and sharing sessions by these elderly
ambassadors Under the Plan a ldquoSouthern District Age-friendlyrdquo logo was awarded to
government departments management companies of residential estates local
organisations and commercial tenants in the district in recognition of their outstanding
age-friendly facilities and services Furthermore local organisations and commercial
tenants were invited to sign up for the dementia friendly list so as to help families in
search for their missing dementia-affected family members 15
To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative (ldquoHKSARrdquo) Region the Celebration for All project co-
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
8
ordinated by the Home Affairs Department and implemented by NGOs was launched
in the Southern district on 10 June 2017 Participating NGOs including the Hong
Kong Southern District Community Association the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services the Caritas Community Centre - Aberdeen and the Tung
Wah Group of Hospitals in Southern district as well as different volunteer teams The
NGOs and volunteers brought love and care to the community by conducting home
visits to single elderly households and to better understand their living conditions and
needs Gift packs were also distributed to the elderly to share the joy of the 20th
anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR 16
Other NGOs in the Southern district have also actively initiated and participated
in age-friendly community projects For example the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services advocated for improvements in transportation roads
pavements markets and other facilities in the district and organized a public forum
「2013-2014 南區長者友善安全社區計劃mdash我想擁有的社區設施」(translated
herein ldquo2013-2014 Elderly Friendly amp Safety Scheme My Most Desired Community
Facilities in Southern Districtrdquo) in February 2014 and invited members from different
government departments to listen and collect views from the elderly on how to
improve existing facilities in the district 17
AKA also worked with different elderly service organizations to enhance
awareness among district residents of the age-friendly community concept With
sponsorship from Fu Tak Iam Foundation (傅德蔭基金) and Ho Cheung Shuk Yuen
Charitable Foundation ( 何張淑婉慈善基金 ) AKA Southern District Elderly
Integrated Services Office launched a 3-year project「『智愛同行』長者及護老
者支援計劃」from January 2016 to December 2018 to enhance the living quality for
mild cognitive impairment (ldquoMCIrdquo) elderly frail elderly and their caretakers and to
promote understanding and care for elderly with dementia in the Southern district 18
For the commercial sector the HSBC Community Partnership Programme
ldquoBringing People Togetherrdquo facilitated various district-based community initiatives to
foster a more inclusive and harmonious society in Hong Kong With the funding in
2014 the Hong Kong Southern District Womens Association launched the「學習處
世道 擕手展共融」 (ldquoCare for Others Community Projectrdquo) for residents in the
Southern district Through workshops and lectures different groups (eg elderly and
youngster) will learn the needs of others thereby engendering greater tolerance and
care for others and ultimately mutual respect and support Community participation
will further encourage participants to mutually support each other thus building a
stronger community network in their district 19
The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals also used the fund applied from HSBC in
2014 for a「愛 綠」行動 (ldquoI-Green Actionrdquo) Project The project used gardening
therapy as a medium to promote mental health by increasing the environmental
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
9
awareness of elders and formerly mentally-ill patients Moreover through helping
them leverage their strengths improve their abilities and self-confidence 19
Elderly residents in the Southern district have also made remarkable efforts in
civic participation and have been actively involved in various platforms In particular
the Southern Elderly Concern Group (「南區長者關注小組」 ) holds regular
meetings and collects views from district residents on various elderly-related issues
and then relays these views to various government departments and District
Councillors Over the years representatives of this concern group had successfully
advocated for more than 20 age-friendly items in the district the installations of
barrier-free ramps covers over bus tops and warning signs and tapes over hazardous
walkways in various venues across the Southern district to name a few
As a result of these concerted efforts put forth by various district stakeholders
the Southern district became one of the first districts selected to participate in the
2008 Age-friendly Community Project under the Hong Kong Plan of Action on
Ageing20
To foster the development of the Southern district as an ldquoAge-friendly
Communityrdquo the Working Group and the Southern District Healthy amp Safe
Association Limited made an accreditation application to World Health Organisation
(WHO) on 28 July 2016 and was informed on 14 September 2016 that the Southern
district was successively admitted as a member of the WHOrsquos ldquoGlobal Network for
Age-friendly Cities and Communitiesrdquo (ldquoGNAFCCrdquo) rendering it the fourth
accredited community in the territory 21
Overall it is evident that various community stakeholders are actively pursuing
projects and initiatives aimed at promoting the concept of age-friendliness and
improving community environment These experiences form a solid foundation upon
which future age-friendly endeavors can be built
3 METHODOLOGY
The baseline assessment consisted of a quantitative (questionnaire survey) study
and a qualitative (focus group) study The questionnaire survey was conducted to
understand the sense of community and perception on age-friendliness of the district
among residents of four sub-district communities in the Southern district The focus
group study was conducted to capture in-depth opinions of the residents on age-
friendliness of the district with reference to the eight domains of the Age-friendly
City as defined by the World Health Organization (ldquoWHOrdquo)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
10
31Questionnaire Survey
311 Participants
Participants recruited for the questionnaire survey were usual residents in the
Southern district aged 18 years or above Exclusion criteria were foreign domestic
helpers or individuals who are mentally incapable to participate in the study
Participants were recruited from four meaningful sub-district communities
(Table 31 amp Appendix 1) The communities were derived a priori according to
features and characteristics of the district and validated by stakeholders who are
familiar with the district
Table 31 Sampling sub-district communities for the Southern district
Sub-district communities Constituency Areas
Pok Fu Lam 薄扶林 (PFL)
Wah Kwai 華貴
Wah Fu (South amp North) 華富 (北及南)
Pokfulam 薄扶林
Chi Fu 置富
Aberdeen 香港仔 (AB) Aberdeen 香港仔
Tin Wan 田灣
Shek Yue 石漁
Ap Lei Chau 鴨脷洲 (ALC) Ap Lei Chau (Estate amp North) 鴨脷洲 (東及北)
Lei Tung (I amp II) 利東(I amp II)
South Horizons (East amp West) 海怡 (東及西)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O 黃竹坑 海灣
赤柱及石澳 (WBSS)
Wong Chuk Hang 黃竹坑
Bays Area 海灣
Stanley amp Shek O 赤柱及石澳
The study aimed to recruit a total of 500 participants comprising primarily
elderly residents aged 60 or above as well as residents aged between 18 and 59 The
study recruited participants from multiple sources including DECCs NECs relevant
NGOs and advertisement and snowball referrals from stakeholders A predetermined
sample size corresponding to the population in each sub-district was set to improve
overall representativeness
312 Measures
The questionnaire survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews and self-
administration (in a small number of cases who preferred the latter mode) to cover the
following areas (Appendix 2)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
11
(i) Sociodemographic Information
These included participantsrsquo age gender marital status education living
arrangement housing type employment and income Self-reported health was
captured using an item for assessing subjective health from the SF-12 Health
Survey 22
(ii) Community Care
These included caregiving engagement with elderly centres use of mobility
tools and ageing-in-place expectations
(iii) Perceived Age-friendliness
Perceived age-friendliness of the district was assessed using 61 items developed
based on a local adaptation of the WHOrsquos Age-friendly City Framework and
Guidelines Participants were asked to rate their perceived age-friendliness
along eight categories namely outdoor spaces and buildings transportation
housing social participation respect and social inclusion civic participation
and employment communication and information and community support and
health services
(iv) Sense of Community
Sense of community including needs fulfilment group membership influence
and shared emotional connection were measured using the 8-item Brief Sense of
Community Scale 2324
313 Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify patterns in sociodemographics
community care perceived age-friendliness and sense of community across
communities Further analyses were performed to test the difference in perceived age-
friendliness and sense of community among age groups and sub-district communities
using linear regression method
32Focus Group
A total of six focus groups comprising 40 participants were conducted in the
Southern district five with elderly residents aged 60 or above and one with district
residents aged between 18 and 59 Views from participants on the perceived age-
friendliness of the district were solicited following the procedure based on the WHO
Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol25
Focus groups
typically took place in DECCs with each group comprising 6 to 7 persons and lasting
approximately 15 to 2 hours Two to three AFC domains pertinent to WHOrsquos age-
friendly framework were explored in each session All focus groups interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
3
Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
2 INTRODUCTION 5
21 Project Background 5 22 District Characteristics 5 23 Previous Age-friendly City Works in the District 7
3 METHODOLOGY 9
31 Questionnaire Survey 10 311 Participants 10 312 Measures 10 313 Data Analysis 11
32 Focus Group 11 4 RESULTS 12
41 Questionnaire Survey 12 411 Participant characteristics 12 412 Perceived Age-friendliness 16 413 Sense of Community 18 414 Age Group Comparison 18 415 Housing Type Comparison 20 416 Sub-district Community Comparison 21
42 Focus Group Study 23 421 Participant characteristics 23 422 Physical Environment 24 423 Social and Cultural Environment 27 424 Communication Community and Health Services 29
5 CONCLUSION 31
6 REFERENCE 33
7 APPENDICES 35
Appendix 1 District Maps 35 Appendix 2 Questionnaire 37 Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire 55 Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide 57
Sau Po Centre on Ageing The University of Hong Kong
2F The Hong Kong Jockey Club Building for Interdisciplinary Research
5 Sassoon Road Pokfulam Hong Kong Tel (852) 2831 5210
Website ageinghk Website ageinghkuhk Email ageinghkuhk
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
4
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Initiated and funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust the
Jockey Club Age-Friendly City Project aims to move Hong Kong towards an age-
friendly city This report describes the baseline assessment work done in the Southern
district from April 2017 to July 2017 as part of the project The objective of the
baseline assessment was to understand the needs of the Southern district in preparing
the district to become more age-friendly The baseline assessment comprised a
quantitative survey study and a qualitative focus group study A total of 710
questionnaire surveys were collected from the four sub-district communities of (1)
Pokfulam (薄扶林) (2) Aberdeen (香港仔) (3) Ap Lei Chau (鴨脷洲) and (4)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley and Shek O (黃竹坑 海灣 赤柱及石澳) A
total of six focus group interviews were conducted
The typical participant of the questionnaire survey was a married woman aged
over 65 years who has resided in the district for 29 years living alone or with a
spouse in a privately owned apartment using elderly centres with fair perceived
health retired with a monthly income of less than HK$6000 but still felt financially
sufficient The age of the building is usually over 30 years with elevator although
residents would still need to take the stairs to go out Majority of elderly residents in
the district expected themselves to age in place in the coming 5 years However
should their health deteriorate the percentage of elderly residents with such
expectation dropped considerably
Participants perceived the Southern district to be age-friendly in general
Comparing the degree of perceived age-friendliness across different domains ldquosocial
participationrdquo scored the highest while ldquohousingrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health
servicesrdquo scored the lowest The sense of community is strong particularly in terms of
sense of membership that is the sense of belonging to the district The older the
resident the stronger the sense of community and perceived age-friendliness Among
those aged 60 years or above most (837) used services or participated in activities
provided by elderly centres Ap Lei Chau residents reported the highest level of
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community compared with those living in the
other three sub-district communities Participants living in private housing had
significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains They also
have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp accessibility
facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic participation
compare with the public housing group
Results from this baseline assessment suggested solid groundwork with a
reasonably good sense of community and perceived age-friendliness in the district
Future efforts toward making the district more age-friendly should build on the
existing infrastructure and network using an asset- and strengths-based community
development framework Specific recommendations were provided for each of the
eight domains in the World Health Organizationrsquos Age-friendly City framework
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
5
2 INTRODUCTION
21 Project Background
Hong Kong is undergoing rapid population ageing The population aged 65
years or above is projected to increase from 15 of the total population in 2014 to
26 by 2029 and to 33 (331) by 2064 1 This means that by 2064 1 in 3 people
in Hong Kong will be an elderly Population ageing is accompanied by a shrinking
labour force and a growing dependency ratio Defined as the number of persons aged
lsquounder 15rsquo and lsquo65 and overrsquo per 1000 persons aged 15 to 64 the dependency ratio is
projected to rise from 348 in 2014 to 716 in 2064 2 These demographic changes carry
significant implications for the demand and costs of public services Therefore
building an age-friendly city (ldquoAFCrdquo) will help meet the needs of older people
enabling them to live active independent and good-quality lives in the community
An age-friendly city would also facilitate the development of Hong Kong as a better
society
The Sau Po Centre on Ageing of The University of Hong Kong (ldquoHKUrdquo)
received a donation from The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust in 2017 to
conduct the Jockey Club Age-Friendly City Project (ldquoJCAFC Projectrdquo) in the Eastern
Southern and Wong Tai Sin districts In all three districts the study is implemented
in two phases from March 2017 to September 2017 (Phase 1) and from October
2017 to December 2019 (Phase 2) Phase 1 of the project consists of three parts The
first and second parts are the baseline assessment of district age-friendliness by using
questionnaire surveys and focus group interviews respectively Focus group
interviews with district residents aim to gain in-depth understanding of their views on
age-friendliness in their communities A report of district-based recommendations and
implementation proposals is generated based on these findings The third part in
Phase 1 is to organize an ldquoAge-friendly City Ambassador Programmerdquo in the districts
to familiarize ambassadors with the knowledge and methods in building an age-
friendly community Phase 2 of the project consists of collaboration with key district
stakeholders and provision of professional support from the HKU team to develop
implement and evaluate district-based age-friendly city projects for enhancing district
age-friendliness
This report presents baseline assessment findings from Phase 1 The objective
of the baseline assessment was to understand the needs of the Southern district in
preparing to become more age-friendly
22 District Characteristics
The Southern district is a diverse district mixed with commercial industrial and
residential areas To date the district maintains a large proportion of its natural
sceneries and traditional customs The Aberdeen Fish Market Typhoon Shelter and
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
6
Shek O Village are unique cultural heritages in the Southern district The Ocean Park
located in Wong Chuk Hang is a world-renowned theme park which attracts over 77
million visitors from all over the world each year With an area of about 4000
hectares the Southern district comprises 17 sub-district communities in the District
Council division namely (1) Aberdeen (香港仔) (2) Ap Lei Chau East (鴨脷洲東)
(3) Ap Lei Chau North (鴨脷洲北) (4) Lei Tung I (利東 I) (5) Lei Tung II (利東 II)
(6) South Horizons East (海怡東) (7) South Horizons West (海怡西) (8) Wah Kwai
(華貴) (9) Wah Fu South (華富南) (10) Wah Fu North (華富北) (11) Pokfulam (薄
扶林) (12) Chi Fu (置富) (13) Tin Wan (田灣) (14) Shek Yue (石漁) (15) Wong
Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) (16) Bays Area (海灣) and (17) Stanley amp Shek O (赤柱及石
澳)
According to the Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department 4 the population
of the Southern district is approximately 274994 as of 2016 which is around 37 of
the total population of Hong Kong The proportion of elderly population aged 65
years or above was 166 of the total district population The district ranks third
among other districts in its percentage of elderly population and is higher than the
Hong Kong average of 159
Table 21 shows the domestic household characteristics of the Southern district
According to the 2016 Hong Kong Population By-Census 4 the total number of
domestic households was 85505 while the average household size was 30 Among
these district residents approximately 612 (n= 149258) participated in the labour
force The median monthly domestic household income was HK$30000
Table 21 Domestic household characteristics of Southern district in 2016
Total number of domestic households 85505
Average household size 30
Type of housing Private Permanent Housing (2011) 5 499
Median monthly domestic household income HK$30000
Median monthly domestic household rent HK$2110
Median monthly domestic household mortgage payment and
loan repayment HK$10000
There is a mixed composition in terms of housing type in the Southern district
Approximately 499 of Southern district residents live in private permanent housing
5 At the same time there are a total of 8 and 9 housing estates for public rental
housing (ldquoPRHrdquo) and home ownership scheme (ldquoHOSrdquo) respectively 6 Accounting
for all types of housing the median monthly domestic household rent was HK$2110
and HK$10000 for mortgage payment and loan repayment Regarding the provision
of elderly centres and health care services the district has a total of 10 elderly centres
2 district elderly community centres (ldquoDECCsrdquo) 7 and 8 neighbourhood elderly
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
7
centres (ldquoNECsrdquo) 8 4 public hospital
9 3 general outpatient clinics
10 and 1 elderly
health care centre 11
In recent years the Southern district also saw the implementation of various
large-scale projects that improved the quality of life for district residents These
include the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park (鴨脷洲風之塔公園) in 2009 which
offered additional outdoor areas for recreational activities 12
and the commencement
of the MTR South Island Line (East) on December 2016 which enhanced convenience
for district commuters 13
23 Previous Age-friendly City Works in the District
To develop an age-friendly community the District Council (ldquoDCrdquo) non-
governmental organizations (ldquoNGOsrdquo) the commercial sector and local elderly
residents in the Southern district have made concerted efforts in promoting the
concept of AFC and in improving the community environment in response to
changing needs of elderly residents The following documents several of these
initiatives
The Southern DC actively promotes the concept of AFC in the community as
evidenced by several noteworthy initiatives For example The Working Group on
Rehabilitation and Age-friendly Community in the Southern district (ldquothe Working
Grouprdquo) implemented the ldquoAge-friendly City Planrdquo in collaboration with the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited (ldquothe Associationrdquo) and proposed a
series of activities and programmes to promote the concept of AFC 14
In 2016-17 the Southern DC obtained a grant of $53000 from the Funding
Scheme for Age-friendly Community under the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the
Elderly Commission With the above funding the Working Group the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited and the Southern Age-friendly and Safe
City Group co-organized various age-friendly related activities including the ldquo2016-
17 Southern District Age-friendly and Safe City Plan ndash Community Care for
Dementiardquo (ldquoThe Planrdquo) The Plan was implemented between August 2016 and
January 2017 and included activities such as recruitment and training of elderly
ambassadors community inspections and sharing sessions by these elderly
ambassadors Under the Plan a ldquoSouthern District Age-friendlyrdquo logo was awarded to
government departments management companies of residential estates local
organisations and commercial tenants in the district in recognition of their outstanding
age-friendly facilities and services Furthermore local organisations and commercial
tenants were invited to sign up for the dementia friendly list so as to help families in
search for their missing dementia-affected family members 15
To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative (ldquoHKSARrdquo) Region the Celebration for All project co-
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
8
ordinated by the Home Affairs Department and implemented by NGOs was launched
in the Southern district on 10 June 2017 Participating NGOs including the Hong
Kong Southern District Community Association the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services the Caritas Community Centre - Aberdeen and the Tung
Wah Group of Hospitals in Southern district as well as different volunteer teams The
NGOs and volunteers brought love and care to the community by conducting home
visits to single elderly households and to better understand their living conditions and
needs Gift packs were also distributed to the elderly to share the joy of the 20th
anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR 16
Other NGOs in the Southern district have also actively initiated and participated
in age-friendly community projects For example the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services advocated for improvements in transportation roads
pavements markets and other facilities in the district and organized a public forum
「2013-2014 南區長者友善安全社區計劃mdash我想擁有的社區設施」(translated
herein ldquo2013-2014 Elderly Friendly amp Safety Scheme My Most Desired Community
Facilities in Southern Districtrdquo) in February 2014 and invited members from different
government departments to listen and collect views from the elderly on how to
improve existing facilities in the district 17
AKA also worked with different elderly service organizations to enhance
awareness among district residents of the age-friendly community concept With
sponsorship from Fu Tak Iam Foundation (傅德蔭基金) and Ho Cheung Shuk Yuen
Charitable Foundation ( 何張淑婉慈善基金 ) AKA Southern District Elderly
Integrated Services Office launched a 3-year project「『智愛同行』長者及護老
者支援計劃」from January 2016 to December 2018 to enhance the living quality for
mild cognitive impairment (ldquoMCIrdquo) elderly frail elderly and their caretakers and to
promote understanding and care for elderly with dementia in the Southern district 18
For the commercial sector the HSBC Community Partnership Programme
ldquoBringing People Togetherrdquo facilitated various district-based community initiatives to
foster a more inclusive and harmonious society in Hong Kong With the funding in
2014 the Hong Kong Southern District Womens Association launched the「學習處
世道 擕手展共融」 (ldquoCare for Others Community Projectrdquo) for residents in the
Southern district Through workshops and lectures different groups (eg elderly and
youngster) will learn the needs of others thereby engendering greater tolerance and
care for others and ultimately mutual respect and support Community participation
will further encourage participants to mutually support each other thus building a
stronger community network in their district 19
The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals also used the fund applied from HSBC in
2014 for a「愛 綠」行動 (ldquoI-Green Actionrdquo) Project The project used gardening
therapy as a medium to promote mental health by increasing the environmental
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
9
awareness of elders and formerly mentally-ill patients Moreover through helping
them leverage their strengths improve their abilities and self-confidence 19
Elderly residents in the Southern district have also made remarkable efforts in
civic participation and have been actively involved in various platforms In particular
the Southern Elderly Concern Group (「南區長者關注小組」 ) holds regular
meetings and collects views from district residents on various elderly-related issues
and then relays these views to various government departments and District
Councillors Over the years representatives of this concern group had successfully
advocated for more than 20 age-friendly items in the district the installations of
barrier-free ramps covers over bus tops and warning signs and tapes over hazardous
walkways in various venues across the Southern district to name a few
As a result of these concerted efforts put forth by various district stakeholders
the Southern district became one of the first districts selected to participate in the
2008 Age-friendly Community Project under the Hong Kong Plan of Action on
Ageing20
To foster the development of the Southern district as an ldquoAge-friendly
Communityrdquo the Working Group and the Southern District Healthy amp Safe
Association Limited made an accreditation application to World Health Organisation
(WHO) on 28 July 2016 and was informed on 14 September 2016 that the Southern
district was successively admitted as a member of the WHOrsquos ldquoGlobal Network for
Age-friendly Cities and Communitiesrdquo (ldquoGNAFCCrdquo) rendering it the fourth
accredited community in the territory 21
Overall it is evident that various community stakeholders are actively pursuing
projects and initiatives aimed at promoting the concept of age-friendliness and
improving community environment These experiences form a solid foundation upon
which future age-friendly endeavors can be built
3 METHODOLOGY
The baseline assessment consisted of a quantitative (questionnaire survey) study
and a qualitative (focus group) study The questionnaire survey was conducted to
understand the sense of community and perception on age-friendliness of the district
among residents of four sub-district communities in the Southern district The focus
group study was conducted to capture in-depth opinions of the residents on age-
friendliness of the district with reference to the eight domains of the Age-friendly
City as defined by the World Health Organization (ldquoWHOrdquo)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
10
31Questionnaire Survey
311 Participants
Participants recruited for the questionnaire survey were usual residents in the
Southern district aged 18 years or above Exclusion criteria were foreign domestic
helpers or individuals who are mentally incapable to participate in the study
Participants were recruited from four meaningful sub-district communities
(Table 31 amp Appendix 1) The communities were derived a priori according to
features and characteristics of the district and validated by stakeholders who are
familiar with the district
Table 31 Sampling sub-district communities for the Southern district
Sub-district communities Constituency Areas
Pok Fu Lam 薄扶林 (PFL)
Wah Kwai 華貴
Wah Fu (South amp North) 華富 (北及南)
Pokfulam 薄扶林
Chi Fu 置富
Aberdeen 香港仔 (AB) Aberdeen 香港仔
Tin Wan 田灣
Shek Yue 石漁
Ap Lei Chau 鴨脷洲 (ALC) Ap Lei Chau (Estate amp North) 鴨脷洲 (東及北)
Lei Tung (I amp II) 利東(I amp II)
South Horizons (East amp West) 海怡 (東及西)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O 黃竹坑 海灣
赤柱及石澳 (WBSS)
Wong Chuk Hang 黃竹坑
Bays Area 海灣
Stanley amp Shek O 赤柱及石澳
The study aimed to recruit a total of 500 participants comprising primarily
elderly residents aged 60 or above as well as residents aged between 18 and 59 The
study recruited participants from multiple sources including DECCs NECs relevant
NGOs and advertisement and snowball referrals from stakeholders A predetermined
sample size corresponding to the population in each sub-district was set to improve
overall representativeness
312 Measures
The questionnaire survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews and self-
administration (in a small number of cases who preferred the latter mode) to cover the
following areas (Appendix 2)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
11
(i) Sociodemographic Information
These included participantsrsquo age gender marital status education living
arrangement housing type employment and income Self-reported health was
captured using an item for assessing subjective health from the SF-12 Health
Survey 22
(ii) Community Care
These included caregiving engagement with elderly centres use of mobility
tools and ageing-in-place expectations
(iii) Perceived Age-friendliness
Perceived age-friendliness of the district was assessed using 61 items developed
based on a local adaptation of the WHOrsquos Age-friendly City Framework and
Guidelines Participants were asked to rate their perceived age-friendliness
along eight categories namely outdoor spaces and buildings transportation
housing social participation respect and social inclusion civic participation
and employment communication and information and community support and
health services
(iv) Sense of Community
Sense of community including needs fulfilment group membership influence
and shared emotional connection were measured using the 8-item Brief Sense of
Community Scale 2324
313 Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify patterns in sociodemographics
community care perceived age-friendliness and sense of community across
communities Further analyses were performed to test the difference in perceived age-
friendliness and sense of community among age groups and sub-district communities
using linear regression method
32Focus Group
A total of six focus groups comprising 40 participants were conducted in the
Southern district five with elderly residents aged 60 or above and one with district
residents aged between 18 and 59 Views from participants on the perceived age-
friendliness of the district were solicited following the procedure based on the WHO
Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol25
Focus groups
typically took place in DECCs with each group comprising 6 to 7 persons and lasting
approximately 15 to 2 hours Two to three AFC domains pertinent to WHOrsquos age-
friendly framework were explored in each session All focus groups interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
4
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Initiated and funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust the
Jockey Club Age-Friendly City Project aims to move Hong Kong towards an age-
friendly city This report describes the baseline assessment work done in the Southern
district from April 2017 to July 2017 as part of the project The objective of the
baseline assessment was to understand the needs of the Southern district in preparing
the district to become more age-friendly The baseline assessment comprised a
quantitative survey study and a qualitative focus group study A total of 710
questionnaire surveys were collected from the four sub-district communities of (1)
Pokfulam (薄扶林) (2) Aberdeen (香港仔) (3) Ap Lei Chau (鴨脷洲) and (4)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley and Shek O (黃竹坑 海灣 赤柱及石澳) A
total of six focus group interviews were conducted
The typical participant of the questionnaire survey was a married woman aged
over 65 years who has resided in the district for 29 years living alone or with a
spouse in a privately owned apartment using elderly centres with fair perceived
health retired with a monthly income of less than HK$6000 but still felt financially
sufficient The age of the building is usually over 30 years with elevator although
residents would still need to take the stairs to go out Majority of elderly residents in
the district expected themselves to age in place in the coming 5 years However
should their health deteriorate the percentage of elderly residents with such
expectation dropped considerably
Participants perceived the Southern district to be age-friendly in general
Comparing the degree of perceived age-friendliness across different domains ldquosocial
participationrdquo scored the highest while ldquohousingrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health
servicesrdquo scored the lowest The sense of community is strong particularly in terms of
sense of membership that is the sense of belonging to the district The older the
resident the stronger the sense of community and perceived age-friendliness Among
those aged 60 years or above most (837) used services or participated in activities
provided by elderly centres Ap Lei Chau residents reported the highest level of
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community compared with those living in the
other three sub-district communities Participants living in private housing had
significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains They also
have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp accessibility
facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic participation
compare with the public housing group
Results from this baseline assessment suggested solid groundwork with a
reasonably good sense of community and perceived age-friendliness in the district
Future efforts toward making the district more age-friendly should build on the
existing infrastructure and network using an asset- and strengths-based community
development framework Specific recommendations were provided for each of the
eight domains in the World Health Organizationrsquos Age-friendly City framework
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
5
2 INTRODUCTION
21 Project Background
Hong Kong is undergoing rapid population ageing The population aged 65
years or above is projected to increase from 15 of the total population in 2014 to
26 by 2029 and to 33 (331) by 2064 1 This means that by 2064 1 in 3 people
in Hong Kong will be an elderly Population ageing is accompanied by a shrinking
labour force and a growing dependency ratio Defined as the number of persons aged
lsquounder 15rsquo and lsquo65 and overrsquo per 1000 persons aged 15 to 64 the dependency ratio is
projected to rise from 348 in 2014 to 716 in 2064 2 These demographic changes carry
significant implications for the demand and costs of public services Therefore
building an age-friendly city (ldquoAFCrdquo) will help meet the needs of older people
enabling them to live active independent and good-quality lives in the community
An age-friendly city would also facilitate the development of Hong Kong as a better
society
The Sau Po Centre on Ageing of The University of Hong Kong (ldquoHKUrdquo)
received a donation from The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust in 2017 to
conduct the Jockey Club Age-Friendly City Project (ldquoJCAFC Projectrdquo) in the Eastern
Southern and Wong Tai Sin districts In all three districts the study is implemented
in two phases from March 2017 to September 2017 (Phase 1) and from October
2017 to December 2019 (Phase 2) Phase 1 of the project consists of three parts The
first and second parts are the baseline assessment of district age-friendliness by using
questionnaire surveys and focus group interviews respectively Focus group
interviews with district residents aim to gain in-depth understanding of their views on
age-friendliness in their communities A report of district-based recommendations and
implementation proposals is generated based on these findings The third part in
Phase 1 is to organize an ldquoAge-friendly City Ambassador Programmerdquo in the districts
to familiarize ambassadors with the knowledge and methods in building an age-
friendly community Phase 2 of the project consists of collaboration with key district
stakeholders and provision of professional support from the HKU team to develop
implement and evaluate district-based age-friendly city projects for enhancing district
age-friendliness
This report presents baseline assessment findings from Phase 1 The objective
of the baseline assessment was to understand the needs of the Southern district in
preparing to become more age-friendly
22 District Characteristics
The Southern district is a diverse district mixed with commercial industrial and
residential areas To date the district maintains a large proportion of its natural
sceneries and traditional customs The Aberdeen Fish Market Typhoon Shelter and
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
6
Shek O Village are unique cultural heritages in the Southern district The Ocean Park
located in Wong Chuk Hang is a world-renowned theme park which attracts over 77
million visitors from all over the world each year With an area of about 4000
hectares the Southern district comprises 17 sub-district communities in the District
Council division namely (1) Aberdeen (香港仔) (2) Ap Lei Chau East (鴨脷洲東)
(3) Ap Lei Chau North (鴨脷洲北) (4) Lei Tung I (利東 I) (5) Lei Tung II (利東 II)
(6) South Horizons East (海怡東) (7) South Horizons West (海怡西) (8) Wah Kwai
(華貴) (9) Wah Fu South (華富南) (10) Wah Fu North (華富北) (11) Pokfulam (薄
扶林) (12) Chi Fu (置富) (13) Tin Wan (田灣) (14) Shek Yue (石漁) (15) Wong
Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) (16) Bays Area (海灣) and (17) Stanley amp Shek O (赤柱及石
澳)
According to the Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department 4 the population
of the Southern district is approximately 274994 as of 2016 which is around 37 of
the total population of Hong Kong The proportion of elderly population aged 65
years or above was 166 of the total district population The district ranks third
among other districts in its percentage of elderly population and is higher than the
Hong Kong average of 159
Table 21 shows the domestic household characteristics of the Southern district
According to the 2016 Hong Kong Population By-Census 4 the total number of
domestic households was 85505 while the average household size was 30 Among
these district residents approximately 612 (n= 149258) participated in the labour
force The median monthly domestic household income was HK$30000
Table 21 Domestic household characteristics of Southern district in 2016
Total number of domestic households 85505
Average household size 30
Type of housing Private Permanent Housing (2011) 5 499
Median monthly domestic household income HK$30000
Median monthly domestic household rent HK$2110
Median monthly domestic household mortgage payment and
loan repayment HK$10000
There is a mixed composition in terms of housing type in the Southern district
Approximately 499 of Southern district residents live in private permanent housing
5 At the same time there are a total of 8 and 9 housing estates for public rental
housing (ldquoPRHrdquo) and home ownership scheme (ldquoHOSrdquo) respectively 6 Accounting
for all types of housing the median monthly domestic household rent was HK$2110
and HK$10000 for mortgage payment and loan repayment Regarding the provision
of elderly centres and health care services the district has a total of 10 elderly centres
2 district elderly community centres (ldquoDECCsrdquo) 7 and 8 neighbourhood elderly
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
7
centres (ldquoNECsrdquo) 8 4 public hospital
9 3 general outpatient clinics
10 and 1 elderly
health care centre 11
In recent years the Southern district also saw the implementation of various
large-scale projects that improved the quality of life for district residents These
include the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park (鴨脷洲風之塔公園) in 2009 which
offered additional outdoor areas for recreational activities 12
and the commencement
of the MTR South Island Line (East) on December 2016 which enhanced convenience
for district commuters 13
23 Previous Age-friendly City Works in the District
To develop an age-friendly community the District Council (ldquoDCrdquo) non-
governmental organizations (ldquoNGOsrdquo) the commercial sector and local elderly
residents in the Southern district have made concerted efforts in promoting the
concept of AFC and in improving the community environment in response to
changing needs of elderly residents The following documents several of these
initiatives
The Southern DC actively promotes the concept of AFC in the community as
evidenced by several noteworthy initiatives For example The Working Group on
Rehabilitation and Age-friendly Community in the Southern district (ldquothe Working
Grouprdquo) implemented the ldquoAge-friendly City Planrdquo in collaboration with the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited (ldquothe Associationrdquo) and proposed a
series of activities and programmes to promote the concept of AFC 14
In 2016-17 the Southern DC obtained a grant of $53000 from the Funding
Scheme for Age-friendly Community under the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the
Elderly Commission With the above funding the Working Group the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited and the Southern Age-friendly and Safe
City Group co-organized various age-friendly related activities including the ldquo2016-
17 Southern District Age-friendly and Safe City Plan ndash Community Care for
Dementiardquo (ldquoThe Planrdquo) The Plan was implemented between August 2016 and
January 2017 and included activities such as recruitment and training of elderly
ambassadors community inspections and sharing sessions by these elderly
ambassadors Under the Plan a ldquoSouthern District Age-friendlyrdquo logo was awarded to
government departments management companies of residential estates local
organisations and commercial tenants in the district in recognition of their outstanding
age-friendly facilities and services Furthermore local organisations and commercial
tenants were invited to sign up for the dementia friendly list so as to help families in
search for their missing dementia-affected family members 15
To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative (ldquoHKSARrdquo) Region the Celebration for All project co-
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
8
ordinated by the Home Affairs Department and implemented by NGOs was launched
in the Southern district on 10 June 2017 Participating NGOs including the Hong
Kong Southern District Community Association the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services the Caritas Community Centre - Aberdeen and the Tung
Wah Group of Hospitals in Southern district as well as different volunteer teams The
NGOs and volunteers brought love and care to the community by conducting home
visits to single elderly households and to better understand their living conditions and
needs Gift packs were also distributed to the elderly to share the joy of the 20th
anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR 16
Other NGOs in the Southern district have also actively initiated and participated
in age-friendly community projects For example the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services advocated for improvements in transportation roads
pavements markets and other facilities in the district and organized a public forum
「2013-2014 南區長者友善安全社區計劃mdash我想擁有的社區設施」(translated
herein ldquo2013-2014 Elderly Friendly amp Safety Scheme My Most Desired Community
Facilities in Southern Districtrdquo) in February 2014 and invited members from different
government departments to listen and collect views from the elderly on how to
improve existing facilities in the district 17
AKA also worked with different elderly service organizations to enhance
awareness among district residents of the age-friendly community concept With
sponsorship from Fu Tak Iam Foundation (傅德蔭基金) and Ho Cheung Shuk Yuen
Charitable Foundation ( 何張淑婉慈善基金 ) AKA Southern District Elderly
Integrated Services Office launched a 3-year project「『智愛同行』長者及護老
者支援計劃」from January 2016 to December 2018 to enhance the living quality for
mild cognitive impairment (ldquoMCIrdquo) elderly frail elderly and their caretakers and to
promote understanding and care for elderly with dementia in the Southern district 18
For the commercial sector the HSBC Community Partnership Programme
ldquoBringing People Togetherrdquo facilitated various district-based community initiatives to
foster a more inclusive and harmonious society in Hong Kong With the funding in
2014 the Hong Kong Southern District Womens Association launched the「學習處
世道 擕手展共融」 (ldquoCare for Others Community Projectrdquo) for residents in the
Southern district Through workshops and lectures different groups (eg elderly and
youngster) will learn the needs of others thereby engendering greater tolerance and
care for others and ultimately mutual respect and support Community participation
will further encourage participants to mutually support each other thus building a
stronger community network in their district 19
The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals also used the fund applied from HSBC in
2014 for a「愛 綠」行動 (ldquoI-Green Actionrdquo) Project The project used gardening
therapy as a medium to promote mental health by increasing the environmental
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
9
awareness of elders and formerly mentally-ill patients Moreover through helping
them leverage their strengths improve their abilities and self-confidence 19
Elderly residents in the Southern district have also made remarkable efforts in
civic participation and have been actively involved in various platforms In particular
the Southern Elderly Concern Group (「南區長者關注小組」 ) holds regular
meetings and collects views from district residents on various elderly-related issues
and then relays these views to various government departments and District
Councillors Over the years representatives of this concern group had successfully
advocated for more than 20 age-friendly items in the district the installations of
barrier-free ramps covers over bus tops and warning signs and tapes over hazardous
walkways in various venues across the Southern district to name a few
As a result of these concerted efforts put forth by various district stakeholders
the Southern district became one of the first districts selected to participate in the
2008 Age-friendly Community Project under the Hong Kong Plan of Action on
Ageing20
To foster the development of the Southern district as an ldquoAge-friendly
Communityrdquo the Working Group and the Southern District Healthy amp Safe
Association Limited made an accreditation application to World Health Organisation
(WHO) on 28 July 2016 and was informed on 14 September 2016 that the Southern
district was successively admitted as a member of the WHOrsquos ldquoGlobal Network for
Age-friendly Cities and Communitiesrdquo (ldquoGNAFCCrdquo) rendering it the fourth
accredited community in the territory 21
Overall it is evident that various community stakeholders are actively pursuing
projects and initiatives aimed at promoting the concept of age-friendliness and
improving community environment These experiences form a solid foundation upon
which future age-friendly endeavors can be built
3 METHODOLOGY
The baseline assessment consisted of a quantitative (questionnaire survey) study
and a qualitative (focus group) study The questionnaire survey was conducted to
understand the sense of community and perception on age-friendliness of the district
among residents of four sub-district communities in the Southern district The focus
group study was conducted to capture in-depth opinions of the residents on age-
friendliness of the district with reference to the eight domains of the Age-friendly
City as defined by the World Health Organization (ldquoWHOrdquo)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
10
31Questionnaire Survey
311 Participants
Participants recruited for the questionnaire survey were usual residents in the
Southern district aged 18 years or above Exclusion criteria were foreign domestic
helpers or individuals who are mentally incapable to participate in the study
Participants were recruited from four meaningful sub-district communities
(Table 31 amp Appendix 1) The communities were derived a priori according to
features and characteristics of the district and validated by stakeholders who are
familiar with the district
Table 31 Sampling sub-district communities for the Southern district
Sub-district communities Constituency Areas
Pok Fu Lam 薄扶林 (PFL)
Wah Kwai 華貴
Wah Fu (South amp North) 華富 (北及南)
Pokfulam 薄扶林
Chi Fu 置富
Aberdeen 香港仔 (AB) Aberdeen 香港仔
Tin Wan 田灣
Shek Yue 石漁
Ap Lei Chau 鴨脷洲 (ALC) Ap Lei Chau (Estate amp North) 鴨脷洲 (東及北)
Lei Tung (I amp II) 利東(I amp II)
South Horizons (East amp West) 海怡 (東及西)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O 黃竹坑 海灣
赤柱及石澳 (WBSS)
Wong Chuk Hang 黃竹坑
Bays Area 海灣
Stanley amp Shek O 赤柱及石澳
The study aimed to recruit a total of 500 participants comprising primarily
elderly residents aged 60 or above as well as residents aged between 18 and 59 The
study recruited participants from multiple sources including DECCs NECs relevant
NGOs and advertisement and snowball referrals from stakeholders A predetermined
sample size corresponding to the population in each sub-district was set to improve
overall representativeness
312 Measures
The questionnaire survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews and self-
administration (in a small number of cases who preferred the latter mode) to cover the
following areas (Appendix 2)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
11
(i) Sociodemographic Information
These included participantsrsquo age gender marital status education living
arrangement housing type employment and income Self-reported health was
captured using an item for assessing subjective health from the SF-12 Health
Survey 22
(ii) Community Care
These included caregiving engagement with elderly centres use of mobility
tools and ageing-in-place expectations
(iii) Perceived Age-friendliness
Perceived age-friendliness of the district was assessed using 61 items developed
based on a local adaptation of the WHOrsquos Age-friendly City Framework and
Guidelines Participants were asked to rate their perceived age-friendliness
along eight categories namely outdoor spaces and buildings transportation
housing social participation respect and social inclusion civic participation
and employment communication and information and community support and
health services
(iv) Sense of Community
Sense of community including needs fulfilment group membership influence
and shared emotional connection were measured using the 8-item Brief Sense of
Community Scale 2324
313 Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify patterns in sociodemographics
community care perceived age-friendliness and sense of community across
communities Further analyses were performed to test the difference in perceived age-
friendliness and sense of community among age groups and sub-district communities
using linear regression method
32Focus Group
A total of six focus groups comprising 40 participants were conducted in the
Southern district five with elderly residents aged 60 or above and one with district
residents aged between 18 and 59 Views from participants on the perceived age-
friendliness of the district were solicited following the procedure based on the WHO
Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol25
Focus groups
typically took place in DECCs with each group comprising 6 to 7 persons and lasting
approximately 15 to 2 hours Two to three AFC domains pertinent to WHOrsquos age-
friendly framework were explored in each session All focus groups interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
5
2 INTRODUCTION
21 Project Background
Hong Kong is undergoing rapid population ageing The population aged 65
years or above is projected to increase from 15 of the total population in 2014 to
26 by 2029 and to 33 (331) by 2064 1 This means that by 2064 1 in 3 people
in Hong Kong will be an elderly Population ageing is accompanied by a shrinking
labour force and a growing dependency ratio Defined as the number of persons aged
lsquounder 15rsquo and lsquo65 and overrsquo per 1000 persons aged 15 to 64 the dependency ratio is
projected to rise from 348 in 2014 to 716 in 2064 2 These demographic changes carry
significant implications for the demand and costs of public services Therefore
building an age-friendly city (ldquoAFCrdquo) will help meet the needs of older people
enabling them to live active independent and good-quality lives in the community
An age-friendly city would also facilitate the development of Hong Kong as a better
society
The Sau Po Centre on Ageing of The University of Hong Kong (ldquoHKUrdquo)
received a donation from The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust in 2017 to
conduct the Jockey Club Age-Friendly City Project (ldquoJCAFC Projectrdquo) in the Eastern
Southern and Wong Tai Sin districts In all three districts the study is implemented
in two phases from March 2017 to September 2017 (Phase 1) and from October
2017 to December 2019 (Phase 2) Phase 1 of the project consists of three parts The
first and second parts are the baseline assessment of district age-friendliness by using
questionnaire surveys and focus group interviews respectively Focus group
interviews with district residents aim to gain in-depth understanding of their views on
age-friendliness in their communities A report of district-based recommendations and
implementation proposals is generated based on these findings The third part in
Phase 1 is to organize an ldquoAge-friendly City Ambassador Programmerdquo in the districts
to familiarize ambassadors with the knowledge and methods in building an age-
friendly community Phase 2 of the project consists of collaboration with key district
stakeholders and provision of professional support from the HKU team to develop
implement and evaluate district-based age-friendly city projects for enhancing district
age-friendliness
This report presents baseline assessment findings from Phase 1 The objective
of the baseline assessment was to understand the needs of the Southern district in
preparing to become more age-friendly
22 District Characteristics
The Southern district is a diverse district mixed with commercial industrial and
residential areas To date the district maintains a large proportion of its natural
sceneries and traditional customs The Aberdeen Fish Market Typhoon Shelter and
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
6
Shek O Village are unique cultural heritages in the Southern district The Ocean Park
located in Wong Chuk Hang is a world-renowned theme park which attracts over 77
million visitors from all over the world each year With an area of about 4000
hectares the Southern district comprises 17 sub-district communities in the District
Council division namely (1) Aberdeen (香港仔) (2) Ap Lei Chau East (鴨脷洲東)
(3) Ap Lei Chau North (鴨脷洲北) (4) Lei Tung I (利東 I) (5) Lei Tung II (利東 II)
(6) South Horizons East (海怡東) (7) South Horizons West (海怡西) (8) Wah Kwai
(華貴) (9) Wah Fu South (華富南) (10) Wah Fu North (華富北) (11) Pokfulam (薄
扶林) (12) Chi Fu (置富) (13) Tin Wan (田灣) (14) Shek Yue (石漁) (15) Wong
Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) (16) Bays Area (海灣) and (17) Stanley amp Shek O (赤柱及石
澳)
According to the Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department 4 the population
of the Southern district is approximately 274994 as of 2016 which is around 37 of
the total population of Hong Kong The proportion of elderly population aged 65
years or above was 166 of the total district population The district ranks third
among other districts in its percentage of elderly population and is higher than the
Hong Kong average of 159
Table 21 shows the domestic household characteristics of the Southern district
According to the 2016 Hong Kong Population By-Census 4 the total number of
domestic households was 85505 while the average household size was 30 Among
these district residents approximately 612 (n= 149258) participated in the labour
force The median monthly domestic household income was HK$30000
Table 21 Domestic household characteristics of Southern district in 2016
Total number of domestic households 85505
Average household size 30
Type of housing Private Permanent Housing (2011) 5 499
Median monthly domestic household income HK$30000
Median monthly domestic household rent HK$2110
Median monthly domestic household mortgage payment and
loan repayment HK$10000
There is a mixed composition in terms of housing type in the Southern district
Approximately 499 of Southern district residents live in private permanent housing
5 At the same time there are a total of 8 and 9 housing estates for public rental
housing (ldquoPRHrdquo) and home ownership scheme (ldquoHOSrdquo) respectively 6 Accounting
for all types of housing the median monthly domestic household rent was HK$2110
and HK$10000 for mortgage payment and loan repayment Regarding the provision
of elderly centres and health care services the district has a total of 10 elderly centres
2 district elderly community centres (ldquoDECCsrdquo) 7 and 8 neighbourhood elderly
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
7
centres (ldquoNECsrdquo) 8 4 public hospital
9 3 general outpatient clinics
10 and 1 elderly
health care centre 11
In recent years the Southern district also saw the implementation of various
large-scale projects that improved the quality of life for district residents These
include the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park (鴨脷洲風之塔公園) in 2009 which
offered additional outdoor areas for recreational activities 12
and the commencement
of the MTR South Island Line (East) on December 2016 which enhanced convenience
for district commuters 13
23 Previous Age-friendly City Works in the District
To develop an age-friendly community the District Council (ldquoDCrdquo) non-
governmental organizations (ldquoNGOsrdquo) the commercial sector and local elderly
residents in the Southern district have made concerted efforts in promoting the
concept of AFC and in improving the community environment in response to
changing needs of elderly residents The following documents several of these
initiatives
The Southern DC actively promotes the concept of AFC in the community as
evidenced by several noteworthy initiatives For example The Working Group on
Rehabilitation and Age-friendly Community in the Southern district (ldquothe Working
Grouprdquo) implemented the ldquoAge-friendly City Planrdquo in collaboration with the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited (ldquothe Associationrdquo) and proposed a
series of activities and programmes to promote the concept of AFC 14
In 2016-17 the Southern DC obtained a grant of $53000 from the Funding
Scheme for Age-friendly Community under the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the
Elderly Commission With the above funding the Working Group the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited and the Southern Age-friendly and Safe
City Group co-organized various age-friendly related activities including the ldquo2016-
17 Southern District Age-friendly and Safe City Plan ndash Community Care for
Dementiardquo (ldquoThe Planrdquo) The Plan was implemented between August 2016 and
January 2017 and included activities such as recruitment and training of elderly
ambassadors community inspections and sharing sessions by these elderly
ambassadors Under the Plan a ldquoSouthern District Age-friendlyrdquo logo was awarded to
government departments management companies of residential estates local
organisations and commercial tenants in the district in recognition of their outstanding
age-friendly facilities and services Furthermore local organisations and commercial
tenants were invited to sign up for the dementia friendly list so as to help families in
search for their missing dementia-affected family members 15
To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative (ldquoHKSARrdquo) Region the Celebration for All project co-
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
8
ordinated by the Home Affairs Department and implemented by NGOs was launched
in the Southern district on 10 June 2017 Participating NGOs including the Hong
Kong Southern District Community Association the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services the Caritas Community Centre - Aberdeen and the Tung
Wah Group of Hospitals in Southern district as well as different volunteer teams The
NGOs and volunteers brought love and care to the community by conducting home
visits to single elderly households and to better understand their living conditions and
needs Gift packs were also distributed to the elderly to share the joy of the 20th
anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR 16
Other NGOs in the Southern district have also actively initiated and participated
in age-friendly community projects For example the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services advocated for improvements in transportation roads
pavements markets and other facilities in the district and organized a public forum
「2013-2014 南區長者友善安全社區計劃mdash我想擁有的社區設施」(translated
herein ldquo2013-2014 Elderly Friendly amp Safety Scheme My Most Desired Community
Facilities in Southern Districtrdquo) in February 2014 and invited members from different
government departments to listen and collect views from the elderly on how to
improve existing facilities in the district 17
AKA also worked with different elderly service organizations to enhance
awareness among district residents of the age-friendly community concept With
sponsorship from Fu Tak Iam Foundation (傅德蔭基金) and Ho Cheung Shuk Yuen
Charitable Foundation ( 何張淑婉慈善基金 ) AKA Southern District Elderly
Integrated Services Office launched a 3-year project「『智愛同行』長者及護老
者支援計劃」from January 2016 to December 2018 to enhance the living quality for
mild cognitive impairment (ldquoMCIrdquo) elderly frail elderly and their caretakers and to
promote understanding and care for elderly with dementia in the Southern district 18
For the commercial sector the HSBC Community Partnership Programme
ldquoBringing People Togetherrdquo facilitated various district-based community initiatives to
foster a more inclusive and harmonious society in Hong Kong With the funding in
2014 the Hong Kong Southern District Womens Association launched the「學習處
世道 擕手展共融」 (ldquoCare for Others Community Projectrdquo) for residents in the
Southern district Through workshops and lectures different groups (eg elderly and
youngster) will learn the needs of others thereby engendering greater tolerance and
care for others and ultimately mutual respect and support Community participation
will further encourage participants to mutually support each other thus building a
stronger community network in their district 19
The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals also used the fund applied from HSBC in
2014 for a「愛 綠」行動 (ldquoI-Green Actionrdquo) Project The project used gardening
therapy as a medium to promote mental health by increasing the environmental
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
9
awareness of elders and formerly mentally-ill patients Moreover through helping
them leverage their strengths improve their abilities and self-confidence 19
Elderly residents in the Southern district have also made remarkable efforts in
civic participation and have been actively involved in various platforms In particular
the Southern Elderly Concern Group (「南區長者關注小組」 ) holds regular
meetings and collects views from district residents on various elderly-related issues
and then relays these views to various government departments and District
Councillors Over the years representatives of this concern group had successfully
advocated for more than 20 age-friendly items in the district the installations of
barrier-free ramps covers over bus tops and warning signs and tapes over hazardous
walkways in various venues across the Southern district to name a few
As a result of these concerted efforts put forth by various district stakeholders
the Southern district became one of the first districts selected to participate in the
2008 Age-friendly Community Project under the Hong Kong Plan of Action on
Ageing20
To foster the development of the Southern district as an ldquoAge-friendly
Communityrdquo the Working Group and the Southern District Healthy amp Safe
Association Limited made an accreditation application to World Health Organisation
(WHO) on 28 July 2016 and was informed on 14 September 2016 that the Southern
district was successively admitted as a member of the WHOrsquos ldquoGlobal Network for
Age-friendly Cities and Communitiesrdquo (ldquoGNAFCCrdquo) rendering it the fourth
accredited community in the territory 21
Overall it is evident that various community stakeholders are actively pursuing
projects and initiatives aimed at promoting the concept of age-friendliness and
improving community environment These experiences form a solid foundation upon
which future age-friendly endeavors can be built
3 METHODOLOGY
The baseline assessment consisted of a quantitative (questionnaire survey) study
and a qualitative (focus group) study The questionnaire survey was conducted to
understand the sense of community and perception on age-friendliness of the district
among residents of four sub-district communities in the Southern district The focus
group study was conducted to capture in-depth opinions of the residents on age-
friendliness of the district with reference to the eight domains of the Age-friendly
City as defined by the World Health Organization (ldquoWHOrdquo)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
10
31Questionnaire Survey
311 Participants
Participants recruited for the questionnaire survey were usual residents in the
Southern district aged 18 years or above Exclusion criteria were foreign domestic
helpers or individuals who are mentally incapable to participate in the study
Participants were recruited from four meaningful sub-district communities
(Table 31 amp Appendix 1) The communities were derived a priori according to
features and characteristics of the district and validated by stakeholders who are
familiar with the district
Table 31 Sampling sub-district communities for the Southern district
Sub-district communities Constituency Areas
Pok Fu Lam 薄扶林 (PFL)
Wah Kwai 華貴
Wah Fu (South amp North) 華富 (北及南)
Pokfulam 薄扶林
Chi Fu 置富
Aberdeen 香港仔 (AB) Aberdeen 香港仔
Tin Wan 田灣
Shek Yue 石漁
Ap Lei Chau 鴨脷洲 (ALC) Ap Lei Chau (Estate amp North) 鴨脷洲 (東及北)
Lei Tung (I amp II) 利東(I amp II)
South Horizons (East amp West) 海怡 (東及西)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O 黃竹坑 海灣
赤柱及石澳 (WBSS)
Wong Chuk Hang 黃竹坑
Bays Area 海灣
Stanley amp Shek O 赤柱及石澳
The study aimed to recruit a total of 500 participants comprising primarily
elderly residents aged 60 or above as well as residents aged between 18 and 59 The
study recruited participants from multiple sources including DECCs NECs relevant
NGOs and advertisement and snowball referrals from stakeholders A predetermined
sample size corresponding to the population in each sub-district was set to improve
overall representativeness
312 Measures
The questionnaire survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews and self-
administration (in a small number of cases who preferred the latter mode) to cover the
following areas (Appendix 2)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
11
(i) Sociodemographic Information
These included participantsrsquo age gender marital status education living
arrangement housing type employment and income Self-reported health was
captured using an item for assessing subjective health from the SF-12 Health
Survey 22
(ii) Community Care
These included caregiving engagement with elderly centres use of mobility
tools and ageing-in-place expectations
(iii) Perceived Age-friendliness
Perceived age-friendliness of the district was assessed using 61 items developed
based on a local adaptation of the WHOrsquos Age-friendly City Framework and
Guidelines Participants were asked to rate their perceived age-friendliness
along eight categories namely outdoor spaces and buildings transportation
housing social participation respect and social inclusion civic participation
and employment communication and information and community support and
health services
(iv) Sense of Community
Sense of community including needs fulfilment group membership influence
and shared emotional connection were measured using the 8-item Brief Sense of
Community Scale 2324
313 Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify patterns in sociodemographics
community care perceived age-friendliness and sense of community across
communities Further analyses were performed to test the difference in perceived age-
friendliness and sense of community among age groups and sub-district communities
using linear regression method
32Focus Group
A total of six focus groups comprising 40 participants were conducted in the
Southern district five with elderly residents aged 60 or above and one with district
residents aged between 18 and 59 Views from participants on the perceived age-
friendliness of the district were solicited following the procedure based on the WHO
Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol25
Focus groups
typically took place in DECCs with each group comprising 6 to 7 persons and lasting
approximately 15 to 2 hours Two to three AFC domains pertinent to WHOrsquos age-
friendly framework were explored in each session All focus groups interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
6
Shek O Village are unique cultural heritages in the Southern district The Ocean Park
located in Wong Chuk Hang is a world-renowned theme park which attracts over 77
million visitors from all over the world each year With an area of about 4000
hectares the Southern district comprises 17 sub-district communities in the District
Council division namely (1) Aberdeen (香港仔) (2) Ap Lei Chau East (鴨脷洲東)
(3) Ap Lei Chau North (鴨脷洲北) (4) Lei Tung I (利東 I) (5) Lei Tung II (利東 II)
(6) South Horizons East (海怡東) (7) South Horizons West (海怡西) (8) Wah Kwai
(華貴) (9) Wah Fu South (華富南) (10) Wah Fu North (華富北) (11) Pokfulam (薄
扶林) (12) Chi Fu (置富) (13) Tin Wan (田灣) (14) Shek Yue (石漁) (15) Wong
Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) (16) Bays Area (海灣) and (17) Stanley amp Shek O (赤柱及石
澳)
According to the Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department 4 the population
of the Southern district is approximately 274994 as of 2016 which is around 37 of
the total population of Hong Kong The proportion of elderly population aged 65
years or above was 166 of the total district population The district ranks third
among other districts in its percentage of elderly population and is higher than the
Hong Kong average of 159
Table 21 shows the domestic household characteristics of the Southern district
According to the 2016 Hong Kong Population By-Census 4 the total number of
domestic households was 85505 while the average household size was 30 Among
these district residents approximately 612 (n= 149258) participated in the labour
force The median monthly domestic household income was HK$30000
Table 21 Domestic household characteristics of Southern district in 2016
Total number of domestic households 85505
Average household size 30
Type of housing Private Permanent Housing (2011) 5 499
Median monthly domestic household income HK$30000
Median monthly domestic household rent HK$2110
Median monthly domestic household mortgage payment and
loan repayment HK$10000
There is a mixed composition in terms of housing type in the Southern district
Approximately 499 of Southern district residents live in private permanent housing
5 At the same time there are a total of 8 and 9 housing estates for public rental
housing (ldquoPRHrdquo) and home ownership scheme (ldquoHOSrdquo) respectively 6 Accounting
for all types of housing the median monthly domestic household rent was HK$2110
and HK$10000 for mortgage payment and loan repayment Regarding the provision
of elderly centres and health care services the district has a total of 10 elderly centres
2 district elderly community centres (ldquoDECCsrdquo) 7 and 8 neighbourhood elderly
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
7
centres (ldquoNECsrdquo) 8 4 public hospital
9 3 general outpatient clinics
10 and 1 elderly
health care centre 11
In recent years the Southern district also saw the implementation of various
large-scale projects that improved the quality of life for district residents These
include the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park (鴨脷洲風之塔公園) in 2009 which
offered additional outdoor areas for recreational activities 12
and the commencement
of the MTR South Island Line (East) on December 2016 which enhanced convenience
for district commuters 13
23 Previous Age-friendly City Works in the District
To develop an age-friendly community the District Council (ldquoDCrdquo) non-
governmental organizations (ldquoNGOsrdquo) the commercial sector and local elderly
residents in the Southern district have made concerted efforts in promoting the
concept of AFC and in improving the community environment in response to
changing needs of elderly residents The following documents several of these
initiatives
The Southern DC actively promotes the concept of AFC in the community as
evidenced by several noteworthy initiatives For example The Working Group on
Rehabilitation and Age-friendly Community in the Southern district (ldquothe Working
Grouprdquo) implemented the ldquoAge-friendly City Planrdquo in collaboration with the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited (ldquothe Associationrdquo) and proposed a
series of activities and programmes to promote the concept of AFC 14
In 2016-17 the Southern DC obtained a grant of $53000 from the Funding
Scheme for Age-friendly Community under the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the
Elderly Commission With the above funding the Working Group the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited and the Southern Age-friendly and Safe
City Group co-organized various age-friendly related activities including the ldquo2016-
17 Southern District Age-friendly and Safe City Plan ndash Community Care for
Dementiardquo (ldquoThe Planrdquo) The Plan was implemented between August 2016 and
January 2017 and included activities such as recruitment and training of elderly
ambassadors community inspections and sharing sessions by these elderly
ambassadors Under the Plan a ldquoSouthern District Age-friendlyrdquo logo was awarded to
government departments management companies of residential estates local
organisations and commercial tenants in the district in recognition of their outstanding
age-friendly facilities and services Furthermore local organisations and commercial
tenants were invited to sign up for the dementia friendly list so as to help families in
search for their missing dementia-affected family members 15
To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative (ldquoHKSARrdquo) Region the Celebration for All project co-
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
8
ordinated by the Home Affairs Department and implemented by NGOs was launched
in the Southern district on 10 June 2017 Participating NGOs including the Hong
Kong Southern District Community Association the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services the Caritas Community Centre - Aberdeen and the Tung
Wah Group of Hospitals in Southern district as well as different volunteer teams The
NGOs and volunteers brought love and care to the community by conducting home
visits to single elderly households and to better understand their living conditions and
needs Gift packs were also distributed to the elderly to share the joy of the 20th
anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR 16
Other NGOs in the Southern district have also actively initiated and participated
in age-friendly community projects For example the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services advocated for improvements in transportation roads
pavements markets and other facilities in the district and organized a public forum
「2013-2014 南區長者友善安全社區計劃mdash我想擁有的社區設施」(translated
herein ldquo2013-2014 Elderly Friendly amp Safety Scheme My Most Desired Community
Facilities in Southern Districtrdquo) in February 2014 and invited members from different
government departments to listen and collect views from the elderly on how to
improve existing facilities in the district 17
AKA also worked with different elderly service organizations to enhance
awareness among district residents of the age-friendly community concept With
sponsorship from Fu Tak Iam Foundation (傅德蔭基金) and Ho Cheung Shuk Yuen
Charitable Foundation ( 何張淑婉慈善基金 ) AKA Southern District Elderly
Integrated Services Office launched a 3-year project「『智愛同行』長者及護老
者支援計劃」from January 2016 to December 2018 to enhance the living quality for
mild cognitive impairment (ldquoMCIrdquo) elderly frail elderly and their caretakers and to
promote understanding and care for elderly with dementia in the Southern district 18
For the commercial sector the HSBC Community Partnership Programme
ldquoBringing People Togetherrdquo facilitated various district-based community initiatives to
foster a more inclusive and harmonious society in Hong Kong With the funding in
2014 the Hong Kong Southern District Womens Association launched the「學習處
世道 擕手展共融」 (ldquoCare for Others Community Projectrdquo) for residents in the
Southern district Through workshops and lectures different groups (eg elderly and
youngster) will learn the needs of others thereby engendering greater tolerance and
care for others and ultimately mutual respect and support Community participation
will further encourage participants to mutually support each other thus building a
stronger community network in their district 19
The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals also used the fund applied from HSBC in
2014 for a「愛 綠」行動 (ldquoI-Green Actionrdquo) Project The project used gardening
therapy as a medium to promote mental health by increasing the environmental
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
9
awareness of elders and formerly mentally-ill patients Moreover through helping
them leverage their strengths improve their abilities and self-confidence 19
Elderly residents in the Southern district have also made remarkable efforts in
civic participation and have been actively involved in various platforms In particular
the Southern Elderly Concern Group (「南區長者關注小組」 ) holds regular
meetings and collects views from district residents on various elderly-related issues
and then relays these views to various government departments and District
Councillors Over the years representatives of this concern group had successfully
advocated for more than 20 age-friendly items in the district the installations of
barrier-free ramps covers over bus tops and warning signs and tapes over hazardous
walkways in various venues across the Southern district to name a few
As a result of these concerted efforts put forth by various district stakeholders
the Southern district became one of the first districts selected to participate in the
2008 Age-friendly Community Project under the Hong Kong Plan of Action on
Ageing20
To foster the development of the Southern district as an ldquoAge-friendly
Communityrdquo the Working Group and the Southern District Healthy amp Safe
Association Limited made an accreditation application to World Health Organisation
(WHO) on 28 July 2016 and was informed on 14 September 2016 that the Southern
district was successively admitted as a member of the WHOrsquos ldquoGlobal Network for
Age-friendly Cities and Communitiesrdquo (ldquoGNAFCCrdquo) rendering it the fourth
accredited community in the territory 21
Overall it is evident that various community stakeholders are actively pursuing
projects and initiatives aimed at promoting the concept of age-friendliness and
improving community environment These experiences form a solid foundation upon
which future age-friendly endeavors can be built
3 METHODOLOGY
The baseline assessment consisted of a quantitative (questionnaire survey) study
and a qualitative (focus group) study The questionnaire survey was conducted to
understand the sense of community and perception on age-friendliness of the district
among residents of four sub-district communities in the Southern district The focus
group study was conducted to capture in-depth opinions of the residents on age-
friendliness of the district with reference to the eight domains of the Age-friendly
City as defined by the World Health Organization (ldquoWHOrdquo)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
10
31Questionnaire Survey
311 Participants
Participants recruited for the questionnaire survey were usual residents in the
Southern district aged 18 years or above Exclusion criteria were foreign domestic
helpers or individuals who are mentally incapable to participate in the study
Participants were recruited from four meaningful sub-district communities
(Table 31 amp Appendix 1) The communities were derived a priori according to
features and characteristics of the district and validated by stakeholders who are
familiar with the district
Table 31 Sampling sub-district communities for the Southern district
Sub-district communities Constituency Areas
Pok Fu Lam 薄扶林 (PFL)
Wah Kwai 華貴
Wah Fu (South amp North) 華富 (北及南)
Pokfulam 薄扶林
Chi Fu 置富
Aberdeen 香港仔 (AB) Aberdeen 香港仔
Tin Wan 田灣
Shek Yue 石漁
Ap Lei Chau 鴨脷洲 (ALC) Ap Lei Chau (Estate amp North) 鴨脷洲 (東及北)
Lei Tung (I amp II) 利東(I amp II)
South Horizons (East amp West) 海怡 (東及西)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O 黃竹坑 海灣
赤柱及石澳 (WBSS)
Wong Chuk Hang 黃竹坑
Bays Area 海灣
Stanley amp Shek O 赤柱及石澳
The study aimed to recruit a total of 500 participants comprising primarily
elderly residents aged 60 or above as well as residents aged between 18 and 59 The
study recruited participants from multiple sources including DECCs NECs relevant
NGOs and advertisement and snowball referrals from stakeholders A predetermined
sample size corresponding to the population in each sub-district was set to improve
overall representativeness
312 Measures
The questionnaire survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews and self-
administration (in a small number of cases who preferred the latter mode) to cover the
following areas (Appendix 2)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
11
(i) Sociodemographic Information
These included participantsrsquo age gender marital status education living
arrangement housing type employment and income Self-reported health was
captured using an item for assessing subjective health from the SF-12 Health
Survey 22
(ii) Community Care
These included caregiving engagement with elderly centres use of mobility
tools and ageing-in-place expectations
(iii) Perceived Age-friendliness
Perceived age-friendliness of the district was assessed using 61 items developed
based on a local adaptation of the WHOrsquos Age-friendly City Framework and
Guidelines Participants were asked to rate their perceived age-friendliness
along eight categories namely outdoor spaces and buildings transportation
housing social participation respect and social inclusion civic participation
and employment communication and information and community support and
health services
(iv) Sense of Community
Sense of community including needs fulfilment group membership influence
and shared emotional connection were measured using the 8-item Brief Sense of
Community Scale 2324
313 Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify patterns in sociodemographics
community care perceived age-friendliness and sense of community across
communities Further analyses were performed to test the difference in perceived age-
friendliness and sense of community among age groups and sub-district communities
using linear regression method
32Focus Group
A total of six focus groups comprising 40 participants were conducted in the
Southern district five with elderly residents aged 60 or above and one with district
residents aged between 18 and 59 Views from participants on the perceived age-
friendliness of the district were solicited following the procedure based on the WHO
Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol25
Focus groups
typically took place in DECCs with each group comprising 6 to 7 persons and lasting
approximately 15 to 2 hours Two to three AFC domains pertinent to WHOrsquos age-
friendly framework were explored in each session All focus groups interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
7
centres (ldquoNECsrdquo) 8 4 public hospital
9 3 general outpatient clinics
10 and 1 elderly
health care centre 11
In recent years the Southern district also saw the implementation of various
large-scale projects that improved the quality of life for district residents These
include the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park (鴨脷洲風之塔公園) in 2009 which
offered additional outdoor areas for recreational activities 12
and the commencement
of the MTR South Island Line (East) on December 2016 which enhanced convenience
for district commuters 13
23 Previous Age-friendly City Works in the District
To develop an age-friendly community the District Council (ldquoDCrdquo) non-
governmental organizations (ldquoNGOsrdquo) the commercial sector and local elderly
residents in the Southern district have made concerted efforts in promoting the
concept of AFC and in improving the community environment in response to
changing needs of elderly residents The following documents several of these
initiatives
The Southern DC actively promotes the concept of AFC in the community as
evidenced by several noteworthy initiatives For example The Working Group on
Rehabilitation and Age-friendly Community in the Southern district (ldquothe Working
Grouprdquo) implemented the ldquoAge-friendly City Planrdquo in collaboration with the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited (ldquothe Associationrdquo) and proposed a
series of activities and programmes to promote the concept of AFC 14
In 2016-17 the Southern DC obtained a grant of $53000 from the Funding
Scheme for Age-friendly Community under the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the
Elderly Commission With the above funding the Working Group the Southern
District Healthy amp Safe Association Limited and the Southern Age-friendly and Safe
City Group co-organized various age-friendly related activities including the ldquo2016-
17 Southern District Age-friendly and Safe City Plan ndash Community Care for
Dementiardquo (ldquoThe Planrdquo) The Plan was implemented between August 2016 and
January 2017 and included activities such as recruitment and training of elderly
ambassadors community inspections and sharing sessions by these elderly
ambassadors Under the Plan a ldquoSouthern District Age-friendlyrdquo logo was awarded to
government departments management companies of residential estates local
organisations and commercial tenants in the district in recognition of their outstanding
age-friendly facilities and services Furthermore local organisations and commercial
tenants were invited to sign up for the dementia friendly list so as to help families in
search for their missing dementia-affected family members 15
To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative (ldquoHKSARrdquo) Region the Celebration for All project co-
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
8
ordinated by the Home Affairs Department and implemented by NGOs was launched
in the Southern district on 10 June 2017 Participating NGOs including the Hong
Kong Southern District Community Association the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services the Caritas Community Centre - Aberdeen and the Tung
Wah Group of Hospitals in Southern district as well as different volunteer teams The
NGOs and volunteers brought love and care to the community by conducting home
visits to single elderly households and to better understand their living conditions and
needs Gift packs were also distributed to the elderly to share the joy of the 20th
anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR 16
Other NGOs in the Southern district have also actively initiated and participated
in age-friendly community projects For example the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services advocated for improvements in transportation roads
pavements markets and other facilities in the district and organized a public forum
「2013-2014 南區長者友善安全社區計劃mdash我想擁有的社區設施」(translated
herein ldquo2013-2014 Elderly Friendly amp Safety Scheme My Most Desired Community
Facilities in Southern Districtrdquo) in February 2014 and invited members from different
government departments to listen and collect views from the elderly on how to
improve existing facilities in the district 17
AKA also worked with different elderly service organizations to enhance
awareness among district residents of the age-friendly community concept With
sponsorship from Fu Tak Iam Foundation (傅德蔭基金) and Ho Cheung Shuk Yuen
Charitable Foundation ( 何張淑婉慈善基金 ) AKA Southern District Elderly
Integrated Services Office launched a 3-year project「『智愛同行』長者及護老
者支援計劃」from January 2016 to December 2018 to enhance the living quality for
mild cognitive impairment (ldquoMCIrdquo) elderly frail elderly and their caretakers and to
promote understanding and care for elderly with dementia in the Southern district 18
For the commercial sector the HSBC Community Partnership Programme
ldquoBringing People Togetherrdquo facilitated various district-based community initiatives to
foster a more inclusive and harmonious society in Hong Kong With the funding in
2014 the Hong Kong Southern District Womens Association launched the「學習處
世道 擕手展共融」 (ldquoCare for Others Community Projectrdquo) for residents in the
Southern district Through workshops and lectures different groups (eg elderly and
youngster) will learn the needs of others thereby engendering greater tolerance and
care for others and ultimately mutual respect and support Community participation
will further encourage participants to mutually support each other thus building a
stronger community network in their district 19
The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals also used the fund applied from HSBC in
2014 for a「愛 綠」行動 (ldquoI-Green Actionrdquo) Project The project used gardening
therapy as a medium to promote mental health by increasing the environmental
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
9
awareness of elders and formerly mentally-ill patients Moreover through helping
them leverage their strengths improve their abilities and self-confidence 19
Elderly residents in the Southern district have also made remarkable efforts in
civic participation and have been actively involved in various platforms In particular
the Southern Elderly Concern Group (「南區長者關注小組」 ) holds regular
meetings and collects views from district residents on various elderly-related issues
and then relays these views to various government departments and District
Councillors Over the years representatives of this concern group had successfully
advocated for more than 20 age-friendly items in the district the installations of
barrier-free ramps covers over bus tops and warning signs and tapes over hazardous
walkways in various venues across the Southern district to name a few
As a result of these concerted efforts put forth by various district stakeholders
the Southern district became one of the first districts selected to participate in the
2008 Age-friendly Community Project under the Hong Kong Plan of Action on
Ageing20
To foster the development of the Southern district as an ldquoAge-friendly
Communityrdquo the Working Group and the Southern District Healthy amp Safe
Association Limited made an accreditation application to World Health Organisation
(WHO) on 28 July 2016 and was informed on 14 September 2016 that the Southern
district was successively admitted as a member of the WHOrsquos ldquoGlobal Network for
Age-friendly Cities and Communitiesrdquo (ldquoGNAFCCrdquo) rendering it the fourth
accredited community in the territory 21
Overall it is evident that various community stakeholders are actively pursuing
projects and initiatives aimed at promoting the concept of age-friendliness and
improving community environment These experiences form a solid foundation upon
which future age-friendly endeavors can be built
3 METHODOLOGY
The baseline assessment consisted of a quantitative (questionnaire survey) study
and a qualitative (focus group) study The questionnaire survey was conducted to
understand the sense of community and perception on age-friendliness of the district
among residents of four sub-district communities in the Southern district The focus
group study was conducted to capture in-depth opinions of the residents on age-
friendliness of the district with reference to the eight domains of the Age-friendly
City as defined by the World Health Organization (ldquoWHOrdquo)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
10
31Questionnaire Survey
311 Participants
Participants recruited for the questionnaire survey were usual residents in the
Southern district aged 18 years or above Exclusion criteria were foreign domestic
helpers or individuals who are mentally incapable to participate in the study
Participants were recruited from four meaningful sub-district communities
(Table 31 amp Appendix 1) The communities were derived a priori according to
features and characteristics of the district and validated by stakeholders who are
familiar with the district
Table 31 Sampling sub-district communities for the Southern district
Sub-district communities Constituency Areas
Pok Fu Lam 薄扶林 (PFL)
Wah Kwai 華貴
Wah Fu (South amp North) 華富 (北及南)
Pokfulam 薄扶林
Chi Fu 置富
Aberdeen 香港仔 (AB) Aberdeen 香港仔
Tin Wan 田灣
Shek Yue 石漁
Ap Lei Chau 鴨脷洲 (ALC) Ap Lei Chau (Estate amp North) 鴨脷洲 (東及北)
Lei Tung (I amp II) 利東(I amp II)
South Horizons (East amp West) 海怡 (東及西)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O 黃竹坑 海灣
赤柱及石澳 (WBSS)
Wong Chuk Hang 黃竹坑
Bays Area 海灣
Stanley amp Shek O 赤柱及石澳
The study aimed to recruit a total of 500 participants comprising primarily
elderly residents aged 60 or above as well as residents aged between 18 and 59 The
study recruited participants from multiple sources including DECCs NECs relevant
NGOs and advertisement and snowball referrals from stakeholders A predetermined
sample size corresponding to the population in each sub-district was set to improve
overall representativeness
312 Measures
The questionnaire survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews and self-
administration (in a small number of cases who preferred the latter mode) to cover the
following areas (Appendix 2)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
11
(i) Sociodemographic Information
These included participantsrsquo age gender marital status education living
arrangement housing type employment and income Self-reported health was
captured using an item for assessing subjective health from the SF-12 Health
Survey 22
(ii) Community Care
These included caregiving engagement with elderly centres use of mobility
tools and ageing-in-place expectations
(iii) Perceived Age-friendliness
Perceived age-friendliness of the district was assessed using 61 items developed
based on a local adaptation of the WHOrsquos Age-friendly City Framework and
Guidelines Participants were asked to rate their perceived age-friendliness
along eight categories namely outdoor spaces and buildings transportation
housing social participation respect and social inclusion civic participation
and employment communication and information and community support and
health services
(iv) Sense of Community
Sense of community including needs fulfilment group membership influence
and shared emotional connection were measured using the 8-item Brief Sense of
Community Scale 2324
313 Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify patterns in sociodemographics
community care perceived age-friendliness and sense of community across
communities Further analyses were performed to test the difference in perceived age-
friendliness and sense of community among age groups and sub-district communities
using linear regression method
32Focus Group
A total of six focus groups comprising 40 participants were conducted in the
Southern district five with elderly residents aged 60 or above and one with district
residents aged between 18 and 59 Views from participants on the perceived age-
friendliness of the district were solicited following the procedure based on the WHO
Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol25
Focus groups
typically took place in DECCs with each group comprising 6 to 7 persons and lasting
approximately 15 to 2 hours Two to three AFC domains pertinent to WHOrsquos age-
friendly framework were explored in each session All focus groups interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
8
ordinated by the Home Affairs Department and implemented by NGOs was launched
in the Southern district on 10 June 2017 Participating NGOs including the Hong
Kong Southern District Community Association the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services the Caritas Community Centre - Aberdeen and the Tung
Wah Group of Hospitals in Southern district as well as different volunteer teams The
NGOs and volunteers brought love and care to the community by conducting home
visits to single elderly households and to better understand their living conditions and
needs Gift packs were also distributed to the elderly to share the joy of the 20th
anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR 16
Other NGOs in the Southern district have also actively initiated and participated
in age-friendly community projects For example the Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare
Association Social Services advocated for improvements in transportation roads
pavements markets and other facilities in the district and organized a public forum
「2013-2014 南區長者友善安全社區計劃mdash我想擁有的社區設施」(translated
herein ldquo2013-2014 Elderly Friendly amp Safety Scheme My Most Desired Community
Facilities in Southern Districtrdquo) in February 2014 and invited members from different
government departments to listen and collect views from the elderly on how to
improve existing facilities in the district 17
AKA also worked with different elderly service organizations to enhance
awareness among district residents of the age-friendly community concept With
sponsorship from Fu Tak Iam Foundation (傅德蔭基金) and Ho Cheung Shuk Yuen
Charitable Foundation ( 何張淑婉慈善基金 ) AKA Southern District Elderly
Integrated Services Office launched a 3-year project「『智愛同行』長者及護老
者支援計劃」from January 2016 to December 2018 to enhance the living quality for
mild cognitive impairment (ldquoMCIrdquo) elderly frail elderly and their caretakers and to
promote understanding and care for elderly with dementia in the Southern district 18
For the commercial sector the HSBC Community Partnership Programme
ldquoBringing People Togetherrdquo facilitated various district-based community initiatives to
foster a more inclusive and harmonious society in Hong Kong With the funding in
2014 the Hong Kong Southern District Womens Association launched the「學習處
世道 擕手展共融」 (ldquoCare for Others Community Projectrdquo) for residents in the
Southern district Through workshops and lectures different groups (eg elderly and
youngster) will learn the needs of others thereby engendering greater tolerance and
care for others and ultimately mutual respect and support Community participation
will further encourage participants to mutually support each other thus building a
stronger community network in their district 19
The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals also used the fund applied from HSBC in
2014 for a「愛 綠」行動 (ldquoI-Green Actionrdquo) Project The project used gardening
therapy as a medium to promote mental health by increasing the environmental
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
9
awareness of elders and formerly mentally-ill patients Moreover through helping
them leverage their strengths improve their abilities and self-confidence 19
Elderly residents in the Southern district have also made remarkable efforts in
civic participation and have been actively involved in various platforms In particular
the Southern Elderly Concern Group (「南區長者關注小組」 ) holds regular
meetings and collects views from district residents on various elderly-related issues
and then relays these views to various government departments and District
Councillors Over the years representatives of this concern group had successfully
advocated for more than 20 age-friendly items in the district the installations of
barrier-free ramps covers over bus tops and warning signs and tapes over hazardous
walkways in various venues across the Southern district to name a few
As a result of these concerted efforts put forth by various district stakeholders
the Southern district became one of the first districts selected to participate in the
2008 Age-friendly Community Project under the Hong Kong Plan of Action on
Ageing20
To foster the development of the Southern district as an ldquoAge-friendly
Communityrdquo the Working Group and the Southern District Healthy amp Safe
Association Limited made an accreditation application to World Health Organisation
(WHO) on 28 July 2016 and was informed on 14 September 2016 that the Southern
district was successively admitted as a member of the WHOrsquos ldquoGlobal Network for
Age-friendly Cities and Communitiesrdquo (ldquoGNAFCCrdquo) rendering it the fourth
accredited community in the territory 21
Overall it is evident that various community stakeholders are actively pursuing
projects and initiatives aimed at promoting the concept of age-friendliness and
improving community environment These experiences form a solid foundation upon
which future age-friendly endeavors can be built
3 METHODOLOGY
The baseline assessment consisted of a quantitative (questionnaire survey) study
and a qualitative (focus group) study The questionnaire survey was conducted to
understand the sense of community and perception on age-friendliness of the district
among residents of four sub-district communities in the Southern district The focus
group study was conducted to capture in-depth opinions of the residents on age-
friendliness of the district with reference to the eight domains of the Age-friendly
City as defined by the World Health Organization (ldquoWHOrdquo)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
10
31Questionnaire Survey
311 Participants
Participants recruited for the questionnaire survey were usual residents in the
Southern district aged 18 years or above Exclusion criteria were foreign domestic
helpers or individuals who are mentally incapable to participate in the study
Participants were recruited from four meaningful sub-district communities
(Table 31 amp Appendix 1) The communities were derived a priori according to
features and characteristics of the district and validated by stakeholders who are
familiar with the district
Table 31 Sampling sub-district communities for the Southern district
Sub-district communities Constituency Areas
Pok Fu Lam 薄扶林 (PFL)
Wah Kwai 華貴
Wah Fu (South amp North) 華富 (北及南)
Pokfulam 薄扶林
Chi Fu 置富
Aberdeen 香港仔 (AB) Aberdeen 香港仔
Tin Wan 田灣
Shek Yue 石漁
Ap Lei Chau 鴨脷洲 (ALC) Ap Lei Chau (Estate amp North) 鴨脷洲 (東及北)
Lei Tung (I amp II) 利東(I amp II)
South Horizons (East amp West) 海怡 (東及西)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O 黃竹坑 海灣
赤柱及石澳 (WBSS)
Wong Chuk Hang 黃竹坑
Bays Area 海灣
Stanley amp Shek O 赤柱及石澳
The study aimed to recruit a total of 500 participants comprising primarily
elderly residents aged 60 or above as well as residents aged between 18 and 59 The
study recruited participants from multiple sources including DECCs NECs relevant
NGOs and advertisement and snowball referrals from stakeholders A predetermined
sample size corresponding to the population in each sub-district was set to improve
overall representativeness
312 Measures
The questionnaire survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews and self-
administration (in a small number of cases who preferred the latter mode) to cover the
following areas (Appendix 2)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
11
(i) Sociodemographic Information
These included participantsrsquo age gender marital status education living
arrangement housing type employment and income Self-reported health was
captured using an item for assessing subjective health from the SF-12 Health
Survey 22
(ii) Community Care
These included caregiving engagement with elderly centres use of mobility
tools and ageing-in-place expectations
(iii) Perceived Age-friendliness
Perceived age-friendliness of the district was assessed using 61 items developed
based on a local adaptation of the WHOrsquos Age-friendly City Framework and
Guidelines Participants were asked to rate their perceived age-friendliness
along eight categories namely outdoor spaces and buildings transportation
housing social participation respect and social inclusion civic participation
and employment communication and information and community support and
health services
(iv) Sense of Community
Sense of community including needs fulfilment group membership influence
and shared emotional connection were measured using the 8-item Brief Sense of
Community Scale 2324
313 Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify patterns in sociodemographics
community care perceived age-friendliness and sense of community across
communities Further analyses were performed to test the difference in perceived age-
friendliness and sense of community among age groups and sub-district communities
using linear regression method
32Focus Group
A total of six focus groups comprising 40 participants were conducted in the
Southern district five with elderly residents aged 60 or above and one with district
residents aged between 18 and 59 Views from participants on the perceived age-
friendliness of the district were solicited following the procedure based on the WHO
Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol25
Focus groups
typically took place in DECCs with each group comprising 6 to 7 persons and lasting
approximately 15 to 2 hours Two to three AFC domains pertinent to WHOrsquos age-
friendly framework were explored in each session All focus groups interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
9
awareness of elders and formerly mentally-ill patients Moreover through helping
them leverage their strengths improve their abilities and self-confidence 19
Elderly residents in the Southern district have also made remarkable efforts in
civic participation and have been actively involved in various platforms In particular
the Southern Elderly Concern Group (「南區長者關注小組」 ) holds regular
meetings and collects views from district residents on various elderly-related issues
and then relays these views to various government departments and District
Councillors Over the years representatives of this concern group had successfully
advocated for more than 20 age-friendly items in the district the installations of
barrier-free ramps covers over bus tops and warning signs and tapes over hazardous
walkways in various venues across the Southern district to name a few
As a result of these concerted efforts put forth by various district stakeholders
the Southern district became one of the first districts selected to participate in the
2008 Age-friendly Community Project under the Hong Kong Plan of Action on
Ageing20
To foster the development of the Southern district as an ldquoAge-friendly
Communityrdquo the Working Group and the Southern District Healthy amp Safe
Association Limited made an accreditation application to World Health Organisation
(WHO) on 28 July 2016 and was informed on 14 September 2016 that the Southern
district was successively admitted as a member of the WHOrsquos ldquoGlobal Network for
Age-friendly Cities and Communitiesrdquo (ldquoGNAFCCrdquo) rendering it the fourth
accredited community in the territory 21
Overall it is evident that various community stakeholders are actively pursuing
projects and initiatives aimed at promoting the concept of age-friendliness and
improving community environment These experiences form a solid foundation upon
which future age-friendly endeavors can be built
3 METHODOLOGY
The baseline assessment consisted of a quantitative (questionnaire survey) study
and a qualitative (focus group) study The questionnaire survey was conducted to
understand the sense of community and perception on age-friendliness of the district
among residents of four sub-district communities in the Southern district The focus
group study was conducted to capture in-depth opinions of the residents on age-
friendliness of the district with reference to the eight domains of the Age-friendly
City as defined by the World Health Organization (ldquoWHOrdquo)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
10
31Questionnaire Survey
311 Participants
Participants recruited for the questionnaire survey were usual residents in the
Southern district aged 18 years or above Exclusion criteria were foreign domestic
helpers or individuals who are mentally incapable to participate in the study
Participants were recruited from four meaningful sub-district communities
(Table 31 amp Appendix 1) The communities were derived a priori according to
features and characteristics of the district and validated by stakeholders who are
familiar with the district
Table 31 Sampling sub-district communities for the Southern district
Sub-district communities Constituency Areas
Pok Fu Lam 薄扶林 (PFL)
Wah Kwai 華貴
Wah Fu (South amp North) 華富 (北及南)
Pokfulam 薄扶林
Chi Fu 置富
Aberdeen 香港仔 (AB) Aberdeen 香港仔
Tin Wan 田灣
Shek Yue 石漁
Ap Lei Chau 鴨脷洲 (ALC) Ap Lei Chau (Estate amp North) 鴨脷洲 (東及北)
Lei Tung (I amp II) 利東(I amp II)
South Horizons (East amp West) 海怡 (東及西)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O 黃竹坑 海灣
赤柱及石澳 (WBSS)
Wong Chuk Hang 黃竹坑
Bays Area 海灣
Stanley amp Shek O 赤柱及石澳
The study aimed to recruit a total of 500 participants comprising primarily
elderly residents aged 60 or above as well as residents aged between 18 and 59 The
study recruited participants from multiple sources including DECCs NECs relevant
NGOs and advertisement and snowball referrals from stakeholders A predetermined
sample size corresponding to the population in each sub-district was set to improve
overall representativeness
312 Measures
The questionnaire survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews and self-
administration (in a small number of cases who preferred the latter mode) to cover the
following areas (Appendix 2)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
11
(i) Sociodemographic Information
These included participantsrsquo age gender marital status education living
arrangement housing type employment and income Self-reported health was
captured using an item for assessing subjective health from the SF-12 Health
Survey 22
(ii) Community Care
These included caregiving engagement with elderly centres use of mobility
tools and ageing-in-place expectations
(iii) Perceived Age-friendliness
Perceived age-friendliness of the district was assessed using 61 items developed
based on a local adaptation of the WHOrsquos Age-friendly City Framework and
Guidelines Participants were asked to rate their perceived age-friendliness
along eight categories namely outdoor spaces and buildings transportation
housing social participation respect and social inclusion civic participation
and employment communication and information and community support and
health services
(iv) Sense of Community
Sense of community including needs fulfilment group membership influence
and shared emotional connection were measured using the 8-item Brief Sense of
Community Scale 2324
313 Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify patterns in sociodemographics
community care perceived age-friendliness and sense of community across
communities Further analyses were performed to test the difference in perceived age-
friendliness and sense of community among age groups and sub-district communities
using linear regression method
32Focus Group
A total of six focus groups comprising 40 participants were conducted in the
Southern district five with elderly residents aged 60 or above and one with district
residents aged between 18 and 59 Views from participants on the perceived age-
friendliness of the district were solicited following the procedure based on the WHO
Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol25
Focus groups
typically took place in DECCs with each group comprising 6 to 7 persons and lasting
approximately 15 to 2 hours Two to three AFC domains pertinent to WHOrsquos age-
friendly framework were explored in each session All focus groups interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
10
31Questionnaire Survey
311 Participants
Participants recruited for the questionnaire survey were usual residents in the
Southern district aged 18 years or above Exclusion criteria were foreign domestic
helpers or individuals who are mentally incapable to participate in the study
Participants were recruited from four meaningful sub-district communities
(Table 31 amp Appendix 1) The communities were derived a priori according to
features and characteristics of the district and validated by stakeholders who are
familiar with the district
Table 31 Sampling sub-district communities for the Southern district
Sub-district communities Constituency Areas
Pok Fu Lam 薄扶林 (PFL)
Wah Kwai 華貴
Wah Fu (South amp North) 華富 (北及南)
Pokfulam 薄扶林
Chi Fu 置富
Aberdeen 香港仔 (AB) Aberdeen 香港仔
Tin Wan 田灣
Shek Yue 石漁
Ap Lei Chau 鴨脷洲 (ALC) Ap Lei Chau (Estate amp North) 鴨脷洲 (東及北)
Lei Tung (I amp II) 利東(I amp II)
South Horizons (East amp West) 海怡 (東及西)
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O 黃竹坑 海灣
赤柱及石澳 (WBSS)
Wong Chuk Hang 黃竹坑
Bays Area 海灣
Stanley amp Shek O 赤柱及石澳
The study aimed to recruit a total of 500 participants comprising primarily
elderly residents aged 60 or above as well as residents aged between 18 and 59 The
study recruited participants from multiple sources including DECCs NECs relevant
NGOs and advertisement and snowball referrals from stakeholders A predetermined
sample size corresponding to the population in each sub-district was set to improve
overall representativeness
312 Measures
The questionnaire survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews and self-
administration (in a small number of cases who preferred the latter mode) to cover the
following areas (Appendix 2)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
11
(i) Sociodemographic Information
These included participantsrsquo age gender marital status education living
arrangement housing type employment and income Self-reported health was
captured using an item for assessing subjective health from the SF-12 Health
Survey 22
(ii) Community Care
These included caregiving engagement with elderly centres use of mobility
tools and ageing-in-place expectations
(iii) Perceived Age-friendliness
Perceived age-friendliness of the district was assessed using 61 items developed
based on a local adaptation of the WHOrsquos Age-friendly City Framework and
Guidelines Participants were asked to rate their perceived age-friendliness
along eight categories namely outdoor spaces and buildings transportation
housing social participation respect and social inclusion civic participation
and employment communication and information and community support and
health services
(iv) Sense of Community
Sense of community including needs fulfilment group membership influence
and shared emotional connection were measured using the 8-item Brief Sense of
Community Scale 2324
313 Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify patterns in sociodemographics
community care perceived age-friendliness and sense of community across
communities Further analyses were performed to test the difference in perceived age-
friendliness and sense of community among age groups and sub-district communities
using linear regression method
32Focus Group
A total of six focus groups comprising 40 participants were conducted in the
Southern district five with elderly residents aged 60 or above and one with district
residents aged between 18 and 59 Views from participants on the perceived age-
friendliness of the district were solicited following the procedure based on the WHO
Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol25
Focus groups
typically took place in DECCs with each group comprising 6 to 7 persons and lasting
approximately 15 to 2 hours Two to three AFC domains pertinent to WHOrsquos age-
friendly framework were explored in each session All focus groups interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
11
(i) Sociodemographic Information
These included participantsrsquo age gender marital status education living
arrangement housing type employment and income Self-reported health was
captured using an item for assessing subjective health from the SF-12 Health
Survey 22
(ii) Community Care
These included caregiving engagement with elderly centres use of mobility
tools and ageing-in-place expectations
(iii) Perceived Age-friendliness
Perceived age-friendliness of the district was assessed using 61 items developed
based on a local adaptation of the WHOrsquos Age-friendly City Framework and
Guidelines Participants were asked to rate their perceived age-friendliness
along eight categories namely outdoor spaces and buildings transportation
housing social participation respect and social inclusion civic participation
and employment communication and information and community support and
health services
(iv) Sense of Community
Sense of community including needs fulfilment group membership influence
and shared emotional connection were measured using the 8-item Brief Sense of
Community Scale 2324
313 Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify patterns in sociodemographics
community care perceived age-friendliness and sense of community across
communities Further analyses were performed to test the difference in perceived age-
friendliness and sense of community among age groups and sub-district communities
using linear regression method
32Focus Group
A total of six focus groups comprising 40 participants were conducted in the
Southern district five with elderly residents aged 60 or above and one with district
residents aged between 18 and 59 Views from participants on the perceived age-
friendliness of the district were solicited following the procedure based on the WHO
Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol25
Focus groups
typically took place in DECCs with each group comprising 6 to 7 persons and lasting
approximately 15 to 2 hours Two to three AFC domains pertinent to WHOrsquos age-
friendly framework were explored in each session All focus groups interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
12
4 RESULTS
41 Questionnaire Survey
411 Participant characteristics
A total of 710 participants were recruited They represented residents in the sub-
district communities of Pok Fu Lam (269 ) Aberdeen (234) Ap Lei Chau
(341) and Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (156) (Table 41)
Table 41 Number of survey participants in the four sub-district communities of the
Southern district
Sub-district communities N
Pok Fu Lam (PFL) 191 269
Aberdeen (AB) 166 234
Ap Lei Chau (ALC) 242 341
Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS) 111 156
Total 710 1000
Participantsrsquo sociodemographic characteristics are summarized in Table 42
Majority (734) of participants in Southern district were female and aged 65 or
above (648) Of all participants half (539) are married Approximately half of
the participants (509) had only primary education or below In terms of
employment status and living arrangement 628 are in their retirement while around
one-third (355) are either living alone or living with their spouse only Another
one-third (335) are living with spouse amp other family members Of all participants
152 are living with a domestic helper About one in five participants is a caregiver
(194) Among these self-identified caregivers 358 and 526 are providing care
for children and older persons respectively Although more than half (523) of all
participants had either no income or having a monthly personal income below
HK$6000 only 155 reported insufficient funds to meet daily expenses
Table 42 Sociodemographic characteristics of questionnaire survey participants
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Gender
Male 189 266 49 257 39 235 69 285 32 282
Female 521 734 142 743 127 765 173 715 79 712
Age Group
18-49 years 135 190 34 178 47 283 38 157 16 144
50-64 years 115 162 20 105 21 127 58 240 16 144
65-79 years 276 389 86 450 59 355 96 397 35 315
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
13
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
≧80 years 184 259 51 267 39 235 50 207 44 396
Marital Status
Never married 76 107 19 99 29 175 20 83 8 72
Married 383 539 97 508 82 494 148 612 56 505
Widowed 232 327 70 366 51 307 66 373 45 405
Divorced separated 19 27 5 26 4 24 8 33 2 18
Education
Nil pre-primary 180 254 45 236 50 301 56 231 29 261
Primary 181 255 58 304 30 181 62 256 31 279
Secondary (F1-3) 87 123 21 110 24 145 26 107 16 144
Secondary (F4-7) 121 123 34 178 28 169 46 190 13 117
Diploma 37 52 11 58 9 54 11 45 6 54
Associate degree 15 21 2 10 5 30 6 25 2 18
Bachelor degree or above 89 125 20 105 20 120 35 145 14 126
Employment status
Working 174 245 42 220 57 343 56 232 19 171
Unemployed 2 03 0 00 1 06 1 04 0 00
Retired 445 628 126 660 91 548 148 614 80 721
Homemakers 80 113 21 110 16 96 33 137 10 90
Students 7 10 1 05 1 06 3 12 2 18
Living arrangement
Living alone 125 176 45 236 27 163 33 136 20 180
With spouse only 127 179 45 236 15 90 51 211 16 144
Spouse amp other family
members
238 335 44 230 67 404 88 364 39 351
With children
grandchildren
147 207 40 209 29 175 51 211 27 243
With other family members 61 86 14 73 25 151 15 62 7 63
With others 12 17 3 16 3 18 4 17 2 18
Living with domestic
helper
89 152 19 131 16 115 36 172 18 198
Participant is a caregiver 138 194 39 204 36 217 47 194 16 144
Elderlydagger 72 526 21 538 17 472 28 596 6 400
People with disabilitydagger 8 58 5 128 2 56 0 00 1 67
Childrendagger 49 358 11 282 14 389 17 362 7 467
Othersdagger 8 58 2 51 3 83 2 43 1 67
Finance
Very insufficient 22 31 9 47 8 48 1 04 4 36
Insufficient 88 124 25 131 24 145 26 107 13 117
Sufficient 436 614 120 628 95 572 142 587 79 712
More than sufficient 148 208 31 162 37 223 68 281 12 108
Abundant 16 23 6 31 2 12 5 21 3 27
Monthly personal income
No income 24 34 3 16 5 30 13 54 3 27
HK$1 to HK$5999 347 489 105 550 79 476 101 417 62 559
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
14
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
HK$6000 to HK$9999 81 114 17 89 15 90 38 157 11 99
HK$10000 to HK$19999 106 149 29 152 34 205 32 132 11 99
HK$20000 to HK$29999 44 62 5 26 13 78 20 83 6 54
HK$30000 to HK$59999 32 45 8 42 6 36 14 58 4 36
gtHK$60000 76 107 24 126 14 84 24 99 14 126
dagger Multiple responses allowed
Residence characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 43 The
average years of residence in the district was 290 years (SD=177) 470 of
participants lived in private owned housing and 423 resided in a building aged
more than 31 years In terms of residential building environment in which participants
live the average number of floors in these buildings was 267 Most (939) of these
buildings have elevators but nearly one fifth (189) of the participants are living in
a building that requires the use of stairs to go out
Table 43 Residence characteristics
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Residence years
(mean SD)
290 177 290 153 302 202 281 154 292 219
Housing N ()
Public rental 306 431 121 634 77 464 90 372 18 162
Private rental 41 58 7 37 13 78 16 66 5 45
Private owned 334 470 62 325 76 458 130 537 66 595
Others 29 41 1 05 0 00 6 25 22 198
Age of building
≦10 years 34 48 6 31 20 120 4 17 4 36
11-20 years 155 218 10 52 65 392 31 128 49 441
21-30 years 221 311 50 262 26 157 106 438 39 351
≧ 31 years 300 423 125 654 55 331 101 417 19 171
Building environment
No of floors (mean
SD)
267 110 252 86 290 94 304 95 175 142
With elevator 667 939 187 979 160 964 229 946 91 820
Need to take stairs 134 189 29 152 32 193 54 224 19 171
The self-reported health status of the participants is presented in Table 44 Half
of the participants (495) rated their health as good or above (mean=33 SD=11)
Around one-quarter of the participants (231) had to walk with assistive devices
such as canes walkers or wheelchairs More than one third (396) of the
participants have volunteered in servicesactivities organized by elderly centres in the
past 3 months Among those aged 60 years or above most (837) have used services
or participated in activities provided by elderly centres
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
15
Table 44 Health social participation and use of community service
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
Self-rated health
Excellent 42 59 16 84 8 48 10 41 8 72
Very good 136 192 34 178 40 241 38 157 24 216
Good 173 244 46 241 37 223 63 260 27 243
Fair 298 420 73 382 69 416 116 479 40 360
Poor 61 86 22 115 12 72 15 62 12 108
Mean score (mean SD) 33 11 33 11 32 10 34 10 32 11
Walk with assistive
device
164 231 49 257 37 223 45 186 33 297
Volunteer in elderly
centres
281 396 72 377 68 410 94 388 47 423
User of elderly centresdagger 437 837 125 839 90 826 144 818 78 886
Cane walker or wheelchair
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
In terms of participantsrsquo ageing-in-place intention (Table 45) 797 were
definitively adamant against moving into a residential care unit in the next 5 years
should their health remain the same Only a small proportion (110) of participants
opined at least 50 chance of having to move into a residential care unit in the next
five years However when asked of the same ageing-in-place intention should their
health worsen in the next 5 years the proportion of participants who expected
absolutely no chance of moving into a residential care unit dropped to 362 and half
(500) of the participants expected at least 50 chance of moving
Table 45 Residential care service use expectation in 5 yearsdagger
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
If health remains the same
0 416 797 120 805 85 780 133 756 78 886
10 25 48 6 40 8 73 9 51 2 23
20 13 25 1 07 1 09 7 40 4 45
30 6 11 1 07 1 09 4 23 0 00
40 5 10 2 13 1 09 2 11 0 00
50 28 54 8 54 5 46 11 63 4 45
60 5 10 3 20 1 09 1 06 0 00
70 5 10 0 00 1 09 4 23 0 00
80 8 15 3 20 3 28 2 11 0 00
90 1 02 0 00 0 00 1 06 0 00
100 10 19 5 34 3 28 2 11 0 00
If health worsens
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
16
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
n n n n n
0 189 362 53 356 40 367 62 352 34 386
10 23 44 9 60 3 28 3 17 8 91
20 23 44 6 40 5 46 6 34 6 68
30 18 34 6 40 2 18 9 51 1 11
40 8 15 2 13 2 18 3 17 1 11
50 109 209 27 181 22 202 38 216 22 250
60 19 36 13 87 1 09 4 23 1 11
70 29 56 5 34 5 46 17 97 2 23
80 30 57 10 67 5 46 14 80 1 11
90 13 25 1 07 7 64 3 17 2 23
100 61 117 17 114 17 156 17 97 10 114
daggerApplicable only to participants aged 60 years or above
412 Perceived Age-friendliness
Figure 41 and shows the perceived age-friendliness across the eight domains in
the WHO Age-friendly City Framework Possible responses were 1 (strongly
disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4 (somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6
(strongly agree)
As illustrated in Figure 41 participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains the highest score was observed in
ldquosocial participationrdquo (44) followed by ldquotransportationrdquo (42) and ldquorespect amp social
inclusionrdquo (41) The domains with the lowest scores were ldquohousingrdquo (37) and
ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo (37)
As shown in Table 46 perceived age-friendliness varied across subdomains
ldquooutdoor spacesrdquo (44) was rated higher than ldquobuildingrdquo (37) in ldquooutdoor spaces amp
buildingrdquo domain ldquoHousingrdquo was perceived as less age-friendly than other domains
with lower scores (35 and 39 respectively) in subdomains ldquohousing affordability amp
accessibilityrdquo and ldquoenvironmentrdquo Similar results were found in ldquotransportationrdquo as
well as ldquocivic participation amp employmentrdquo domains ldquoRoad safety amp maintenancerdquo
was rated the highest (44) among all subdomains in ldquotransportationrdquo but ldquoavailability
of specialized servicesrdquo was rated the lowest (39) whereas ldquocivic participationrdquo was
rated higher (43) than ldquoemploymentrdquo (39) ldquoCommunity support amp health servicesrdquo
have relatively polarized results within different subdomains with ldquomedicalsocial
servicerdquo (40) scoring the highest and ldquoburial servicerdquo (25) scoring the lowest Little
variances (less than 02) were found within subdomains in ldquosocial participationrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunication amp informationrdquo All three of these
domains were perceived as age-friendly with scores varying from 39 to 44
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
17
Figure 41 Perceived age-friendliness by sub-district communities
Table 46 Perceived age-friendliness
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 40 (07) 41 (08) 40 (08) 42 (07) 39 (06)
Outdoor spaces 44 (08) 45 (08) 41 (09) 44 (07) 44 (07)
Buildings 37 (09) 36 (10) 38 (08) 40 (09) 33 (08)
Transportation 42 (07) 42 (08) 41 (07) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Road safety amp maintenance 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 45 (07) 44 (08)
Specialized services availability 39 (11) 38 (12) 38 (10) 41 (11) 37 (11)
Public transport comfort to use 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (08) 42 (07)
Public transport accessibility 42 (08) 43 (08) 42 (08) 43 (08) 41 (08)
Housing 37 (09) 39 (09) 36 (10) 38 (10) 35 (08)
Affordability amp accessibility 35 (10) 38 (11) 34 (11) 36 (11) 31 (10)
Environment 39 (10) 40 (10) 38 (10) 40 (10) 39 (08)
Social participation 44 (08) 44 (08) 42 (08) 44 (07) 43 (07)
Facilities and settings 44 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08) 45 (08) 42 (08)
Social activities 43 (08) 44 (09) 42 (08) 44 (08) 43 (08)
Respect amp social inclusion 41 (08) 42 (09) 41 (07) 42 (08) 40 (07)
Attitude 42 (08) 43 (09) 41 (08) 43 (07) 41 (07)
Social inclusion opportunities 40 (10) 41 (10) 40 (09) 41 (10) 35 (11)
Civic participation amp
employment
40 (09) 41 (10) 38 (09) 40 (09) 41 (09)
Civic participation 43 (11) 43 (11) 41 (11) 44 (11) 42 (10)
Employment 39 (10) 40 (11) 38 (10) 39 (10) 40 (10)
Communication amp information 40 (08) 40 (09) 39 (07) 41 (08) 39 (07)
Information 41 (09) 41 (10) 40 (08) 42 (08) 40 (08)
Communication amp digital
devices
39 (10) 40 (11) 37 (10) 40 (10) 39 (10)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
45
5
55
6
Outdoor spacesamp buildings
Transportation Housing Socialparticipation
Respect ampsocial inclusion
Civicparticipation amp
employment
Communicationamp information
Communitysupport amp
health services
Total
PFL
AB
ALC
WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
18
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Community support amp health
services
37 (08) 38 (08) 36 (07) 39 (08) 35 (07)
Medicalsocial services 40 (09) 41 (09) 39 (08) 42 (08) 37 (09)
Emergency support 37 (12) 38 (12) 35 (11) 38 (11) 36 (12)
Burial service 25 (11) 25 (11) 24 (09) 25 (13) 25 (11)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
The possible responses are 1 (strong disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (somewhat disagree) 4
(somewhat agree) 5 (agree) and 6 (strongly agree)
413 Sense of Community
Sense of community in the Southern district is shown in Table 47 The possible
range of each sub-item score is between 2 and 10 and total score is between 8 and 40
A higher score means a higher sense of community The mean sense of community
score of the whole district was 291 (SD=44) ranging from 280 (WBSS) to 297
(ALC) across the four sub-district communities Overall ldquosense of membershiprdquo
scored highest (78) followed by ldquoemotional connectednessrdquo (75) ldquoneeds fulfillmentrdquo
and ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo (69)
Among the four sub-district communities the total score of sense of community
was highest in ALC followed by PFL AB and WBSS ldquoNeeds fulfillmentrdquo was
found highest in ALC (72) but poor in WBSS (60) ldquoSense of membershiprdquo was
strongest in ALC (79) while the ldquosense of influence in their communityrdquo was
strongest in PFL and ALC (70) ldquoEmotional connectednessrdquo appeared similar across
sub-district communities (75-76)
Table 47 Sense of community
Total PFL AB ALC WBSS
Need fulfilment 69 (16) 69 (16) 70 (14) 72 (15) 60 (19)
Membership 78 (12) 78 (12) 77 (13) 79 (11) 77 (12)
Influence 69 (14) 70 (16) 67 (14) 70 (13) 68 (13)
Emotional connection 75 (12) 75 (13) 75 (13) 76 (12) 75 (12)
Total score 291 (44) 292 (47) 289 (43) 297 (41) 280 (41)
All reported numbers are mean (SD)
414 Age Group Comparison
Table 48 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of age group on
perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for sub-district
communities Participants were divided into 4 age groups including those aged
between 18 to 49 years old 50 to 64 years old 65 to 79 years old and 80 years old or
above for analysis Results showed that the older the group the higher perceived age-
friendliness Higher scores in age-friendliness was found in the age group 50 to 64
compared with the age group 18 to 49 except for six subdomains (each level of
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
19
increase in age group predicted an increase by 024 to 047 scores in the eight
domains) Such differences were more significant in the age group 65 to 79 and the
age group 80 years old or above with each level of increase in age group predicting
an increase by 019 to 118 scores and 038 to 112 respectively across the eight
domains except burial service
In terms of sense of community each level of increase in age group predicted a
154 to 385 point increase All of the domains within these three groups were
significantly different than the reference group except for ldquosense of influencerdquo in the
age group 50 to 64 years old
Table 48 Age-group comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 028 032 060
Outdoor spaces 034 047 072
Buildings 022 019 049
Transportation 031 061 083
Road safety amp maintenance 019 036 048
Specialized services availability 047 079 107
Public transport comfort to use 034 062 090
Public transport accessibility 029 065 085
Housing 039 069 085
Affordability amp accessibility 040 072 089
Environment 038 065 082
Social participation 029 073 085
Facilities and settings 031 070 081
Social activities 028 077 088
Respect amp social inclusion 027 071 077
Attitude 033 072 080
Social inclusion opportunities 016 072 072
Civic participation amp employment 040 089 093
Civic participation 044 118 112
Employment 038 079 087
Communication amp information 024 069 054
Information 025 075 065
Communication amp digital devices 023 058 038
Community support amp health services 029 051 065
Medicalsocial services 041 064 078
Emergency support 025 055 066
Burial service -012 -007 012
Sense of Community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
20
Coefficientdagger
50 to 64 65 to 79 80 or above
Need fulfilment 043 084 097
Membership 053 105 098
Influence 024 097 085
Emotional connection 035 110 106
Total score 154 396 385
daggerAge group 18-49 years as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of sub-district communities
415 Housing Type Comparison
Table 49 shows the linear regression analysis to test the effect of type of
housing on perceived age-friendliness and sense of community after adjusting for age
and sub-district communities Participants were divided into 2 groups - public housing
and private housing for analysis Results showed that participants living in private
housing had significantly lower score in housing and social participation domains
They also have significantly lower score in the sub-domains affordability amp
accessibility facilities and settings social activities attitude and civic
participation compare with the public housing group
Table 49 Housing type comparison using linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 006
Outdoor spaces -001
Buildings 014
Transportation -004
Road safety amp maintenance -007
Specialized services availability -016
Public transport comfort to use -006
Public transport accessibility 003
Housing -019
Affordability amp accessibility -035
Environment -003
Social participation -015
Facilities and settings -015
Social activities -015
Respect amp social inclusion -011
Attitude -013
Social inclusion opportunities -005
Civic participation amp employment -012
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
21
Coefficientdagger
Private housing
Civic participation -021
Employment -009
Communication amp information -009
Information -008
Communication amp digital devices -010
Community support amp health services 001
Medicalsocial services 004
Emergency support -009
Burial service -003
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment -007
Membership -018
Influence -022
Emotional connection -011
Total score -058
daggerPublic housing as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups and sub-district communities
416 Sub-district Community Comparison
Table 410 shows the linear regression analysis comparing sub-district
communities after adjusting for age groups (4 groups) Compared with WBSS higher
perceived age-friendliness were found in ldquooutdoor spaces amp buildingrdquo ldquohousingrdquo
ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo and ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo among all
sub-district communities ldquoTransportationrdquo and ldquosocial participationrdquo were also
perceived as more age-friendly in PFL and ALC than WBSS ALC in particular
scored higher in ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo Furthermore subdomain
analysis showed that participants in WBSS had lower levels of age-friendliness in five
areas including ldquobuildingsrdquo ldquoaccessibility of public transportrdquo ldquohousing affordability
amp accessibilityrdquo ldquosocial inclusion opportunitiesrdquo and ldquomedicalsocial servicesrdquo
compared with residents in the other three sub-district communities Notably ALC
had significantly better perceived age-friendliness in 12 subdomains compared with
WBSS whereas PFL and AB had six
With regard to sense of community PFL AB and ALC had better ldquosense of
communityrdquo and ldquoneed fulfillmentrdquo than WBSS No significant difference was found
in other domains in sense of community except for better ldquosense of membershiprdquo in
ALC compared to WBSS
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
22
Table 410 Sub-district cluster comparison by linear regression analysis
Coefficientdagger
PFL AB ALC
Perceived Age-friendliness
Outdoor spaces amp buildings 024 017 036
Outdoor spaces 016 -022 005
Buildings 032 056 068
Transportation 017 009 027
Road safety amp maintenance 008 -008 014
Specialized services availability 014 025 053
Public transport comfort to use 011 003 017
Public transport accessibility 028 019 030
Housing 047 024 039
Affordability amp accessibility 079 044 057
Environment 016 004 021
Social participation 018 006 024
Facilities and settings 025 018 032
Social activities 011 -004 016
Respect amp social inclusion 029 023 035
Attitude 014 007 021
Social inclusion opportunities 059 055 065
Civic participation amp employment 002 -011 002
Civic participation 006 003 019
Employment 000 -015 -004
Communication amp information 010 001 021
Information 013 008 029
Communication amp digital devices 003 -014 006
Community support amp health services 037 023 045
Medicalsocial services 049 035 057
Emergency support 019 003 031
Burial service 008 -006 008
Sense of Community
Need fulfilment 096 110 128
Membership 010 012 026
Influence 018 000 030
Emotional connection -004 011 013
Total score 120 132 197
daggerWBSS as the reference group
Significance levels at plt005 and plt001
Comparisons are adjusted for the effect of age groups (4 age groups)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
23
42 Focus Group Study
421 Participant characteristics
Six focus groups were conducted to collect residentsrsquo opinions on the age-
friendliness of the Southern district A total of 40 participants were recruited
Majority (675) of the participants were aged 60 years or above and have been
living in the district for 338 years on average Sociodemographic characteristics of
the focus group participants are shown in Table 411
Table 411 Sociodemographic characteristics of focus group participants in the
Southern district
Characteristics N
Gender
Male 13 325
Female 27 675
Age group
18-59 years 8 325
60 years 32 675
Education
Nil pre-primary 6 150
Primary 10 250
Secondary (F1-5) 15 375
Secondary (F6-7) 8 200
Post-secondary 1 25
Housing
Public housing 21 525
Home owner scheme housing 5 125
Private housing 9 225
Others 5 125
Residence years (mean SD) 338 224
Monthly personal income
No income 2 50
HK$1 to HK$5999 22 550
HK$6000 to HK$9999 7 175
HK$10000 to HK$19999 6 150
HK$20000 to HK$29999 1 25
HK$30000 to HK$59999 0 00
geHK$60000 0 00
Unknown reject 2 50
Findings from thematic analyses of the focus groups are presented for the eight
WHO Age-Friendly City framework domains which are further grouped into three
areas namely (1) physical environment (2) social and cultural environment and (3)
communication community and health services Participants in the Southern district
gave many comments and opinions to identify areas for further improvement
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
24
422 Physical Environment
WHO Domain 1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
(i) User-friendliness participants showed appreciation in the considerable number
of outdoor parks in the Southern district for residents to use Participants also
saw marked improvement in recent years in the Southern district with regard to
outdoor spaces These improvements include the installation of brighter lights
ramps bar handles and accessible public toilets amongst parks and other shared
public spaces in the district However they suggested the need for installing
overhead covers on parts of these parks so that elderly residents can enjoy these
public spaces without worrying about the weather
(ii) Safety The wet market in Aberdeen was deemed inaccessible to some
participants who claimed that despite the installation of ramps that enabled
those with walking difficulties to use these ramps are constantly wet and
slippery which was hazardous for elderly residents to navigate Participants
from Stanley also raised concerns with the uneven and slippery steps outside of
the Stanley Plaza (赤柱廣場) which they deemed were hazardous
(iii) Hygiene Some participants from Lei Tung Estate (利東邨) noted a hygiene
issue around the estate citing that dog faeces are often left unattended and
randomly littered on the streets This has created adverse walking conditions for
Lei Tung Estate residents especially those with mobility limitations who had to
deal with bad odour and navigate around these faeces
(iv) Accessibility because large parts of the Southern district are built on hills
participants expressed that they had some mobility difficulties in accessing
some key institutions in their daily lives These include Queen Mary (瑪麗醫院)
and the Grantham Hospitals (葛量洪醫院) and the Aberdeen Jockey Club
Clinic (香港仔賽馬會診所) all of which are situated on hills that require
considerable walking distances Participant also pointed out that various wet
markets were inaccessible to those with mobility limitations such as the one
located in Yue Fai Court (漁暉苑) which required customers to walk several
flights of stairs In addition participants living in Lei Tung (利東邨) and Tin
Wan Estates (田灣邨) also articulated the need to install more escalators as
there were too many stairs which significantly limited their mobility Within
Lei Tung Estate participants also pointed out that they were required to go
through as many as three doors before entering the Lei Tung Commercial
Centre (利東商場) which was difficult to do when carrying groceries or for
people with mobility difficulties
Overall participants had mixed views on the outdoor space of Southern district
While participants identified areas for improvement there were also outdoor spaces
that garnered praise for their age-friendliness
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
25
WHO Domain 2 Transportation
(i) Convenience participants in the Southern district had mixed views when it
came to transport convenience While some alleged that the inception of the
MTR has greatly enhanced their mobility (eg reducing travel time and
avoiding aboveground congestion) others were concerned with its effects on
existing aboveground transports such as minibuses and buses Since some
participants have to travel several times a week to hospitals or clinics for
medical reasons they were particularly concerned with bus routes 91 and 94
which took them directly to Queen Mary Hospital (瑪麗醫院) Participants
worried that with the inception of the MTR service in the district that these
crucial bus routes that enabled them to seek medical care on a daily basis will
be eliminated For instance some participants explained that previously there
were direct minibuses that commuted from Aberdeen to Grantham Hospital (葛
量洪醫院) However the direct route to the hospital has been cut in favour of
another minibus line that required passengers to transfer from the MTR station
in Wong Chuk Hang (黃竹坑) Passengers then have to transfer to another
minibus that takes them up to the hospital add both physical and financial
burden to elderly residents
(ii) Frequency some participants living in Ap Lei Chau complained of the low
frequency of several bus routes including 97A which only runs for two hours in
the morning and after 4 in the afternoon As for residents in Stanley
participants suggested that the current route for bus no14 toward Stanley could
include Ma Hang (馬坑邨 ) as a stop as well as increase its frequency
Participants from Stanley also noted that the frequency of buses no 40 and 52
was insufficient to meet the demands of commuters especially in the weekends
when significant number of tourists visit Stanley
(iii) Accessibility Elderly had mixed views when it came to accessibility of
transport Some found that existing transport within the district reasonably
accessible However others highlighted the need for improving accessibility in
relation to several modes of transport First some participants articulated the
inaccessibility of MTR stations in the Southern district They preferred using
aboveground transport that takes them directly to their destination without
having to walk up and down the stairs or making transfers Second participants
also pointed out that buses are often stopped too far away from the curb when
alighting passengers creating mobility difficulties for elderly passengers
especially those who rely on these buses to take them for medical check-ups or
appointments at Queen Mary Hospital Third participants noted that those with
mobility limitations have little access to barrier-free transports Speaking of
their dependents who have mobility limitations some participants point out that
although barrier-free transport services such as rehabilitation buses are available
their limited supply can barely meet the demands of local residents Participants
also suggested for bus and MTR stations to install more seats for the elderly to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
26
rest if needed As for the bus stations themselves participants suggested for the
installation of covers and seats at some of the key bus stations including the
Queen Mary Hospital bus stop where many participants frequent
(iv) Safety participants were concerned with road safety in relation to the crossing
time allowed in zebra crossings Many opined that too little time is given for
pedestrians especially elderly residents who typically walk slower to cross the
streets In addition some areas such as the Wong Chuk Hang Road (黃竹坑道)
do not have zebra crossings that allow for safe crossings for elderly to reach the
bus stops Furthermore some participants suggested that minibus drivers should
reduce their speed to ensure the safety of passengers
(v) Congestion participants in the Aberdeen community commented on the
congested streets they had to cope with daily They were particularly concerned
with the safety of pedestrians since many observed that cars are often parked
illegally on the streets sometimes taking up parts of the pedestrian walks which
made it difficult and hazardous for them to navigate Participants also noted that
on particular streets in the Southern district including Yue Kwong Road (漁光
道) and Shek Pai Wan Road (石排灣道) large tourist buses would regularly
park on the sides of the streets creating barriers for pedestrians to see oncoming
traffic
Overall participants had mixed views on the districtrsquos transportation in
particular the relatively difficult access to public hospitals within the district
Suggestions were given to improve both software and hardware of transportation
system to further enhance its age-friendliness
WHO Domain 3 Housing
(i) Accessibility most participants claimed that they have seen marked
improvements in their residence buildings For example some participants
living in the Wah Fu Estate (華富邨) praised the installation of lifts bar handles
and additional chairs around the estate for elderly to use Participants also
appreciated the Housing Authority in its willingness to make modifications (eg
installing ramps and bar handles in the households) for PRH residents when in
need However participants living in Yue Kwong Chuen (漁光村 ) also
complained of the steep slope and stairs that they had to navigate each day
Similarly some participants especially those who lived in private housing also
suggested that their residences do not have adequate barrier-free facilities and
equipment such as handles
(ii) Ownership and accountability Some participants also pointed out the
uniqueness of having a Tenants Purchase Scheme amongst some PRH estates in
the Southern district including Wah Kwai (華貴邨) and Lei Tung Estates (利東
邨) where part of the flats are privately owned while the rest are rented has
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
27
created some contention among residences when it comes to renovation and
related work For instance while most residents would agree to install more
seats around the estates residents who had private ownership of their flats
would contest to avoid making out-of-pocket payments
Overall participants had mixed views when it came to housing More effort
may be needed in improving the age-friendliness of housing within the district
423 Social and Cultural Environment
WHO Domain 4 Social Participation
(i) Availability and diversity Participants showed appreciation in the wide range of
social and interest classes made available to elderly residents in the Southern
district including but not limited to health exercise chess magic and cooking
classes These were considered very important in providing good quality of life
for participants
(ii) Community Centre for Shek O residents although participants from Shek O
said that they held their own regular leisure activities such as playing mah-jong
Tai Chi (太極) and swimming they pointed out the lack of DECC or relevant
NGOs in the community Some participants had to travel to DECCs Shau Kei
Wan in order to join interest classes or other group activities Thus they
suggested for Shek O to build their own community centre where elderly and
other district residents can convene and participate in various social activities
irrespective of the weather
Overall focus group participants expressed contentment and joy in their bonds
and friendships with other elderly in the Southern district These are typically
members of DECCs or NGOs or neighbours who have known each other for years
and who regularly meet outside the centre to participate in various kinds of social
activities and gatherings However participants suggested the need to further reach
out to those singleton elderly who are more withdrawn or isolated from the
community and who are hesitant in joining DECCs or NECs
WHO Domain 5 Respect and Social Inclusion
(i) Views on social inclusion and respect were mixed among participants While
some had positive experiences with district residents such as having priority
seats ceded to them on buses and MTRs and being offered help to carry their
grocery bags others recalled incidents where they felt disrespected by others
For instance participants noted that some young people would not apologize if
they accidentally bumped into an elderly or that some district residents would
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
28
purposely push the lsquoclosersquo button faster despite seeing an elderly approaching
the lift
(ii) Navigating institutions participants also expressed that they sometimes felt
disrespected when navigating public institutions such as banking services
health care services and taking buses They described incidents where bank
personnel or bus drivers were impatient with their questions and belittled them
(iii) Positive neighbour relations most participants described their relationships with
neighbours in a positive light such that their neighbours would mutually greet
each other and in times of needs offer help and support For example some
elderly recalled incidents where they fell sick and their neighbours volunteered
to help them purchase groceries Relatedly neighbours were also an important
source of information and communication among district residents with
participants recalling incidents where their neighbours would refer them to
relevant institutions (eg who to call when their air conditioner broke down
etc) in response to their daily needs
(iv) Intergenerational relations while most participants espoused that they had
positive neighbour relations some participants suggested that their relationships
with younger people within their district were less friendly Some participants
observed that many younger residents constantly had their heads down and eyes
glued to their phones thus reducing the amount of interactions that participants
would like
Overall participants had both positive and negative experiences when it came to
respect and social inclusion They suggested for more public education to be
conducted not only for elderlyrsquos sake but also for those who may have needs
WHO Domain 6 Civic Participation amp Employment
(i) Dearth of employment opportunities most participants contended that they had
little chance in securing employment should they decide to apply for jobs in the
district However some did mention that they would seriously consider
participating in the labour force if only the job requirements are less stringent
and offer more flexibility
(ii) Volunteer opportunities while paid employment was considered overall
unavailable in the Southern district participants expressed that there were
ample volunteer opportunities Typically participants volunteered for DECCs
churches and other NGOs within the district and carry out tasks such as
outreaching home visits and delivering meals to singleton elderlies in the
community Participants expressed that these volunteering activities added
much meaning and happiness to their lives and expressed that they were also
able to learn new knowledge and skills while conducting these activities
(iii) Voting elderly participants were reasonably active in exercising their civic
duties of voting However some participants expressed that they chose not to
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
29
vote because it was difficult for them to make choices amongst numerous
district candidates
Overall participants were active in their civic participation especially those
who are member of the Southern district Elderly Concern Group which regularly
holds meeting and relay the views of district elderly residents to various government
departments and the DC
424 Communication Community and Health Services
WHO Domain 7 Communication amp Information
(i) Accessibility participants noted that elderly especially singleton elderly living
by themselves may have difficulties in accessing district-based information or
services For instance some participants noted that it is likely that many elderly
in the district would not know where to access services if their homes were in
need of some modification
(ii) Timeliness of accessing information participants from Stanley also noted that
they had little access to traffic information and recalled incidents where they
were waiting endlessly for buses and minibuses to arrive only to learn much
later that some traffic accidents occurred on the road toward Stanley They
suggested for the need to improve communication amongst local residents and
(mini)bus companies especially with regard to arrival and departing times
Overall participants had considerably easy access to information insofar as they
are active members of DECCs NECs or NGOs However some concerns remain
when it comes to accessing relevant district information
WHO Domain 8 Community Support amp Health Services
(i) Accessibility participants highlighted the tremendous difficulties they
encountered in an attempt to make medical appointment via the telephone They
were frustrated with the automated telephone appointment system which they
deemed was very inconvenient for elderly to navigate Those experiencing
hearing difficulties or cognitive decline are especially challenged when it came
to making medical appointments Some participants resolved to physically
traveling to DECCs and ask for the help of social workers to make these
appointments for them which created considerable discomfort when they fell
sick Thus the automated telephone booking system was considered rather
unfriendly for elderly
(ii) Availability participants had considerable number of choices when it came to
medical care in the Southern district These included the Jockey Club Outpatient
Clinic (賽馬會普通科門診診所) Ap Lei Chau Outpatient Clinic (鴨脷洲診所)
DECCs and two major public hospitals including the Queen Mary Hospital and
the Grantham Hospital There are also mobile health clinics supported by NGOs
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
30
such as Tung Wah Group of Hospitals that provided district residents with
additional medical care service However most participants also noted that even
if they got through the telephone automated system they typically had to wait
until the following day or even longer before there are available timeslots for
them to see a doctor As a result many turn to private clinics within the district
for not wanting to further delay their medical treatments Participants from Shek
O and Stanley had comparatively less favourable views when it came to the
availability of health services in their communities They typically had to travel
further to receive medical care since the availability of medical appointments in
their own respective communities is very limited For instance participants
from Stanley shared that the Stanley General Outpatient Clinic (赤柱普通科門
診診所) only opens for medical consultation in the afternoon thus unable to
respond to the medical demands of elderly residents in the district many of
whom chose to consult private doctors instead
(iii) Dearth of dental services participants identified the dearth in dental care and
Chinese medical services in the Southern district For dental services
participants said that they typically travelled to dental clinics in Sai Ying Pun
(西營盤) for more advanced dental care since those within the district are
limited in their service provision Some participants alleged that only private
dental clinics can perform more advanced dental care services but since private
dentists are typically unaffordable some have simply left their teeth unattended
despite having toothaches Furthermore our participants also shared that the
queues for dental services within the district are longer than general medical
consultation Comparatively participants from Stanley and Shek O have even
less access to dental service since there are neither public nor private dental
services available in their respective communities Considering that toothaches
very much affect the quality of life of elderly participants were particularly
dissatisfied with the lack of affordable dental care services in the Southern
district
(iv) Dearth of residential services in Stanley and Shek O participants from Stanley
and Shek O raised concerns about the lack of Care and Attention Homes for the
Elderly (residential care services) in their communities They shared that most
elderly residents in the district including themselves much prefer to age in
place and are reluctant to leave their own communities However they worried
that with physical and cognitive deterioration that they would have to eventually
leave their communities and be housed elsewhere
(v) Dearth of wet markets participants living in the Shek O and Stanley areas had
no access to wet markets within any walkable distances which created
significant nuances to district residents Although alternative stores were
available for local residents to purchase food participants preferred traditional
wet markets which offered a wider variety of fresh food at affordable prices
Due to such preferences elderly residents from Stanley and Shek O typically
had to travel fairly far (eg Chai Wan or Shau Kei Wan) to purchase groceries
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
31
which is considered a hassle given that they have to carry large bags of
groceries while commuting
(vi) Dearth of banking services participants from several PRH estates including the
Wah Fu and Lei Tung Estates lamented the dwindling of banking services
within the estates where automated banking machines are now in place of
actual banks Participants who did not know how to navigate the automated
banking machines said they had to commute to Aberdeen to withdraw money or
their monthly Old Age Allowance creating considerable inconvenience for
them
Overall participants had mixed views when it comes to community support and
health services Participants from the Stanley and Shek O areas were particularly
concerned with the lack of health care services made available to them in their own
respective districts Although participants living in the Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas
are privy to a wider range of health service provision they had difficulties navigating
automated systems
5 CONCLUSION
The Southern district is one of the first districts in Hong Kong to become a
member of the WHO age-friendliness network It is evident that much effort has been
put forth by local district residents NOGs DECCs and the Southern DC over the
past few years to advance the concept of AFC in the community and to improve the
overall liveability of the Southern district
Overall our survey found that participants perceived the Southern district to be
age-friendly in general Among the eight domains ldquosocial participationrdquo scored the
highest followed by ldquotransportationrdquo and ldquorespect amp social inclusionrdquo These are
assets within the Southern district that can be continually optimized for district
residents of all ages to enjoy On the other hand more resources can be allocated
toward improving ldquocommunity support amp health servicesrdquo and ldquohousingrdquo to
becoming more age-friendly Consolidating findings from both quantitative and
qualitative focus group interviews we propose the following suggestions
To improve the overall age-friendliness of ldquocommunity support and health
servicesrdquo focus group participants suggested for more assistance in making medical
appointments One viable method may be to train up more ldquohealth ambassadorsrdquo
within the Southern district to assist those in need to make medical appointments and
to accompany them to medical appointments The wordings on medicine packages
distributed by the Hospital Authority may also be enhanced to improve legibility for
elderly residents
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquocivil participation and employmentrdquo it is
suggested that employers within the district can adopt more flexible working hours so
that elderly residents capable of performing work tasks can be continually employed
and engaged in the community
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
32
While access to information was regarded to be relatively easy insofar as elderly
residents are members of DECCs focus group participants noted that there is a
considerable number of singleton elderly who live by themselves and who are
socially isolated in the Southern district They suggested for more resources to be put
into outreaching initiatives to ensure the wellbeing of these elderly Other possible
methods include distributing pamphlets on relevant district or elderly information to
mail boxes regardless of membership Participants also expressed their desire for an
accessible centralized platform that can provide all relevant elderly information such
as health seminars policy amendments social events and so forth within the District
for them to peruse
To improve the age-friendliness of ldquooutdoor spaces and buildingsrdquo participants
suggested for the need to reduce clutter on pedestrian walkways which at present
may be populated by parked cars tourist buses and commercial goods These have
created considerable barriers for pedestrians especially those who use assistive tools
such as walkers and wheelchairs
To further improve the age-friendliness of ldquotransportationrdquo participants
suggested for covers to be installed at bus stations and for mini buses to reduce their
commuting speed to ensure passenger safety These are especially needed in stations
close to the major hospitals in the Southern district including Queen Mary Hospital
and the Grantham Hospital Because several locations in the Southern district are
attractive tourist locations including Ocean Park Stanley Aberdeen and Shek O
participants suggested for more bus and minibus routes to be implemented during
weekends where there are typically more tourists frequenting these sites Although
tourism can bring forth additional economic benefits to the district it has also created
some hassle for local elderly residents especially those in Stanley and Shek O who
need to rely on ground transportation to reach wet markets and public hospitals
As participants continue to age it was also suggested that more seminars and
knowledge exchange activities be held within the Southern district to inform elderly
district residents of relevant ageing-in-place information such as home modification
health talks and access to community resources It was also suggested that more
knowledge exchange platforms be held across districts so that elderly residents can
share and learn from what elderly residents in other districts are doing in promoting
AFC
To conclude there is a good general sense of community and perceived age-
friendliness in the Southern district as found in this baseline assessment Future work
to move the district to become more age-friendly should leverage on the sense of
membership and emotional connectedness in the district strengthen the sense of
influence and need fulfilment to include older adults in implementing age-friendly
work in the specific areas of improvements as outlined above
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
33
6 REFERENCE
1 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 2 Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Population Projections 2015-2064
httpwwwstatisticsgovhkpubB1120015062015XXXXB0100pdf Accessed 8
June 2017 3 Ocean Park Hong Kong httpswwwoceanparkcomhkencorporate-
informationgeneral-facts 4Census and Statistics Department Population by-census 2016
httpwwwbycensus2016govhkdata16bc-summary-resultspdf 5 2011 Population Census - Fact Sheet for Southern District Council District
httpwwwcensus2011govhkendistrict-profilessouthernhtml Accessed 13
September 2017 6 Hong Kong Housing Authority Estate Locator 2017
httpwwwhousingauthoritygovhkenglobal-elementsestate-locatorindexhtml
Accessed 19 June 2017 7 Social Welfare Department List of district elderly community centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20DECC201720Jan202017p
df Accessed 19 June 2017 8 Social Welfare Department List of neighbourhood elderly centres 2017
httpwwwswdgovhkdocelderlyList20of20NEC201920Apr202017pd
f Accessed 19 June 2017 9 Hospital Authority Introduction of clusters ndash Hong Kong West cluster ndashhospitals
and institutions 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspLang=ENGampContent_ID=10013
6 Accessed 23 June 2017 10
Hospital Authority All general outpatient clinics in Southern District 2017
httpwwwhaorghkvisitorha_visitor_indexaspContent_ID=10052ampLang=ENG
ampDimension=100ampParent_ID=10042ampVer=HTML Accessed 28 June 2017 11
Department of Health List of clinics and health centres ndash elder health centres
2017
httpwwwdhgovhktc_chiteletele_chctele_chc_ehchtml Accessed 19 June
2017 12
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 13
Southern District Council District highlights 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishinfohighlight_01html Accessed
21 June 2017 14
Southern District Council Working Group on Rehabilitation and Age-friendly
Community in the Southern District 2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthenglishdcdc_structure_listphpid=483amp
committee_type=workgroup Accessed 30 June 2017 15
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019enworking_groups_doc
RAWG12893WGRAC_2017_01_ENpdf Accessed 26 June 2017
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
34
16 Home visits under Celebration for All project in Southern District
httpwwwinfogovhkgiageneral20170610P2017060900951htm Accessed 18
September 2017 17
AKA 南社之音-100 期 2014
httpwwwakaorghkimagespublicationmaxsouth_100pdf Accessed 3 July
2017 18
南區長者綜合服務處於 2016 年 1 月起推行為期 3 年的「『智愛同行』長者
及護老者支援計劃」 httpwwwakaorghkhomephpp=news_detailsampid=318 Accessed 14
September 2017 19
HSBC Community Partnership Programme ndash Bringing People Together
httpswwwcommunitypartnershiporghkcpp_result2014aspx Accessed 18
September 2017 20
WHO Age-friendly world adding life to years ndash Southern district Hong Kong
2017 httpsextranetwhointagefriendlyworldnetworksouthern-district-hong-
kong Accessed 23 June 2017 21
Southern District Council Work Report on Age-friendly Community in 2016-17
2017
httpwwwdistrictcouncilsgovhksouthdoc2016_2019endc_meetings_doc995
8S_2016_94_ENpdf Accessed 14 September 2017 22
Ware J E Kosinski M amp Keller S D (1996) A 12-item short-form health
survey - Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
Medical Care 34(3) 220-233 doi 10109700005650-199603000-00003 23
Huang YN Wong H Impacts of Sense of Community and Satisfaction with
Governmental Recovery on Psychological Status of the Wenchuan Earthquake
Survivors Social Indicators Research 2014 117(2)421- 436 24
Peterson NA Speer PW McMillan DW Validation of a Brief Sense of
Community Scale Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community
Journal of Community Psychology 2008 36(1)61-73 25 WHO Age-friendly Cities Project Methodology-Vancouver Protocol
httpwwwwhointageingpublicationsMicrosoft20Word20-
20AFC_Vancouver_protocolpdf Accessed 5 September 2017
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
35
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 District Maps
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
36
Appendix 1 District Maps (cont)
No Sub-district communities
1 Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
2 Aberdeen (AB)
3 Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
4 Wong Chuk Hang Bays Area
Stanley amp Shek O (WBSS)
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
37
Appendix 2 Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
調查員編號
檢查員編號
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生日期)
若受訪者唔願意提供年齡請揀以下最適當嘅年齡組別
(1) 18-19 (5) 35-39 (9) 55-59 (13) 75-79
(2) 20-24 (6) 40-44 (10) 60-64 (14) 80-84
(3) 25-29 (7) 45-49 (11) 65-69 (15) 85+
(4) 30-34 (8) 50-54 (12) 70-74
A3) 您所住嘅社區[請在以下的社區中選擇一個或在此處註明你居住大
廈屋苑名稱以便職員確實你居住的社區
( )
(1) 薄扶林 (eg 置富花園薄扶林花園貝沙灣碧瑤灣華富邨華貴邨)
(2) 香港仔 (eg 田灣邨香港仔中心漁光邨漁暉苑石排灣邨)
(3) 鴨脷洲 (eg 悅海華庭利東邨漁安苑鴨脷洲邨海怡半島南灣)
(4) 黃竹坑海灣赤柱及石澳 (eg 黃竹坑雅濤閣南濤閣壽臣山陽明山莊淺水灣舂坎角南
灣赤柱鶴咀石澳大浪灣紅山半島)
A4) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A5) 您嘅婚姻狀況係(一定要讀出所有選擇)
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
38
(5) 分居
(6) 其他(請註明)
A6) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A7a) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋 (跳至 A7b)
(2)居屋 (跳至 A7c)
(3)私人房屋 (跳至 A7c)
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位 (跳至 A8a)
(5)宿舍 (跳至 A8a)
(6)其他請註明
(跳至 A8a)
A7b) 您住嘅屋邨
南區
(1) 漁光村 (4) 石排灣邨 (7) 田灣邨
(2) 鴨脷洲邨 (5) 利東邨 (8) 華富(一)邨
(3) 華富(二)邨 (6) 華貴邨 (9) 馬坑邨
A7c) 您住嘅私人住宅單位係
(1) 租
(2) 自己擁有
(3) 家人擁有
A8a) 您居住樓宇嘅樓齡
____________年
如果受訪者唔知請揀以下最適當嘅樓齡
(1) 0-5 年
(2) 6-10 年
(3) 11-20 年
(4) 21-30 年
(5) 30 年以上
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
39
A8b) 您居住嘅大廈總共幾多層
____________層
A8c) 您居住嘅大廈有沒有電梯
(1) 無
(2) 有
A8d) 您從屋企出去需要行樓梯
(1) 唔需要 (跳至 A9a)
(2) 需要
A8e) 總共要行幾多級樓梯
(1) 1-5 級
(2) 6-10 級
(3) 11-15 級
(4) 16-20 級
(5) 21 級或以上
A9a) 您宜家有無同人住
(1) 無自己一個住 (跳至 A10a)
(2) 有
A9b) 您宜家同幾多人住
_______________人
A9c) 唔包括工人您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 其他(請註明)_______________
A9d) 有無工人同您住
(1) 無
(2) 有
A10a) 您宜家有無返工
(1) 無 (跳至 A10b)
(2) 有 (跳至 A10c)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
40
A10b) 您宜家係
(1) 失業人士
(2) 退休人士
(3) 料理家務者
(4) 學生
(5) 其他(請註明)____________________
A10c) 您宜家嘅工作模式
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
A10d) 過去一星期工作左幾多小時
___________小時
A11a) 您有無長期照顧其他人
(1) 無 (跳至 A12a)
(2) 有
A11b) 您照顧嘅人係
(1) 長者
(2) 殘疾人士
(3) 小朋友
(4) 其他
(5) 其他
A11c) 您同您照顧嘅人係咩關係
(1) 朋友
(2) 鄰居
(3) 家人
(4) 親戚
A12a) 過去三個月您有無參與加過任何義工服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
A12b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
過去三個月您有無用過參加過長者中心提供嘅服務活動
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
41
A13) 您有無足夠嘅金錢應付日常開支
(1) 非常不足夠
(2) 不足夠
(3) 剛足夠
(4) 足夠有餘
(5) 非常充裕
A14a) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無 (跳至 A15a)
A14b) 每月政府津貼嘅金額
HK$________________
A15a) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A15b) 您宜家每月嘅收入
HK$________________
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
42
A16a) 如果您出街您需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A16b) 如果您嘅屋企人出街佢哋需唔需要用 (可以揀多過一項)
(1) 輪椅
(2) 助行架
(3) 手杖
(4) 全部都無
A17) 過去 3 天內最遠一次中途唔需要休息嘅行路距離(如果有需要
可以用野支撐)
(1) 無行開
(2) 少過 5 米
(3) 介乎 5 至 49 米
(4) 介乎 50 至 99 米
(5) 介乎 100 至 999 米
(6) 1 千米或以上
A18a) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況同現宜家一樣您覺得您入住老
人院嘅機會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A18b) (只適用於 60 歲或以上人士)
未來 5 年內假如您嘅健康狀況差左您覺得您入住老人院嘅機
會有幾大(0=一定唔會100=一定會)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
43
B Age-Friendliness of a city
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 6 分代表
1 2 3 4 5 6
非常唔同意 唔同意 有啲唔同意 有啲同意 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您居住嘅地區評分有 號嘅題目就以全港情況評分
有啲題目會列出一啲長者友善社區嘅條件如果各項條件都唔一致麻煩您用嗰個
設施環境嘅整體情況評分
您有幾同意宜家helliphelliphellip
A
室外空間及建築
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-A1) 公共地方乾淨同舒適
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A2) 戶外座位同綠化空間充足而且保養得妥善同安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A3) 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A4)
單車徑同行人路分開
(9) 唔適用
B-A5) 街道有充足嘅照明而且有警察巡邏令戶外地方安全
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A6)
商業服務 (好似購物中心超巿銀行) 嘅地點集中同方
便使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A7) 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士例如長者專用櫃枱
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A8)
建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示足夠嘅座位無障礙升降
機斜路扶手同樓梯同埋防滑地板
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A9)
室外同室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足乾淨同埋保養
得妥善 俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-A10) 整體嚟講呢區提供適合長者使用嘅室外空間同建築 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
44
B
交通
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-B1) 路面交通有秩序
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B2) 交通網絡良好透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區同
埋服務地點
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B3) 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅而且價錢清晰無論喺
惡劣天氣繁忙時間或假日收費都係一致嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B4) 喺所有時間包括喺夜晚週末和假日公共交通服務
都係可靠同埋班次頻密
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B5) 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整又列出可以俾傷
殘人士使用嘅班次
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B6) 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨保養良好容易上落唔
迫又有優先使用座位而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要
人士
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B7) 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B8) 車站嘅位置方便容易到達安全乾淨光線充足
有清晰嘅標誌仲有蓋同埋有充足嘅座位
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B9) 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車方便乘客上
落又會等埋乘客坐低先開車
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B10) 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務
(9) 唔適用 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B11) 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器費用負擔得起司機有禮
貌並且樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B12) 馬路保養妥善照明充足 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-B13) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供合適嘅交通工具同服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
45
C
住所
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-C1) 房屋嘅數量足夠價錢可負擔而且地點安全又近其
他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C2) 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可以
自由活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C3) 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應而且供應商了解
長者嘅需要
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C4) 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長者
亦有適合佢哋嘅服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-C5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅房屋同居住環境
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
社會參與
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-D1) 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D2) 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔亦都冇隱藏或附加
嘅收費
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D3) 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料包括無障礙設施同埋交
通選擇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D4) 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D5) 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心學校圖書館社區中
心同公園)內舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D6) 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-D7) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅悠閒同文化活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
46
E
尊重及社會包融
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-E1) 各種服務會定期諮詢長者為求服務得佢地更好
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E2) 提供唔同服務同產品去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜好 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E3) 服務人員有禮貌樂於助人
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E4) 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識並有機
會俾長者參與學校活動
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E5) 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E6) 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇無成見
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-E7) 整體嚟講呢區對長者有足夠嘅尊重同包容嘅
1 2 3 4 5 6
F
社區參與及就業
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-F1) 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇而且得到訓練表揚指
導同埋補償開支
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F2) 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F3) 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F4) 禁止喺僱用留用晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧視
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-F5) 整體嚟講呢區為長者提供適合嘅義工同就業機會
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
47
G
訊息交流
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-G1) 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效唔同年齡嘅人士都接收到
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G2) 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G3) 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上得到同
佢本人有關嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G4) 電子設備好似手提電話收音機電視機銀行自動
櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大同埋上面嘅字體都夠大
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G5) 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚又會話俾打去嘅人聽
點樣可以隨時重複內容
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G6) 係公眾場所好似政府辦事處社區中心同圖書館已
廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-G7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到佢哋需要嘅資訊
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
社區支持與健康服務
非常唔同意
唔同意
有啲唔同意
有啲同意
同意
非常同意
B-H1) 醫療同社區支援服務足夠
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H2) 有提供家居護理服務包括健康丶個人照顧同家務
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H3) 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地方
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H4) 市民唔會因為經濟困難而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援服
務 1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H5) 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同限制
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H6) 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕) 嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲得
1 2 3 4 5 6
B-H7) 整體嚟講長者係呢區容易得到適當嘅醫療健康同支
援服務 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
48
C 社群意識指數
麻煩您講下對以下句子嘅同意程度以 1 至 5 分代表
1 2 3 4 5
非常唔同意 唔同意 普通 同意 非常同意
麻煩您以您住嘅地區評分您有幾同意helliphelliphellip
社群意識指數
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
普
通
同
意
非
常
同
意
C1) 喺呢個社區我可以得到我需要嘅東西 1 2 3 4 5
C2) 這個社區幫助我滿足我嘅需求 1 2 3 4 5
C3) 我覺得自己係這個社區嘅一份子 1 2 3 4 5
C4) 我屬於這呢個社區 1 2 3 4 5
C5) 我可以參與討論喺呢社區發生嘅事情 1 2 3 4 5
C6) 這個社區嘅人們善於互相影響 1 2 3 4 5
C7) 我覺得同呢個社區息息相關 1 2 3 4 5
C8) 我同呢個社區嘅其他人有良好嘅關係 1 2 3 4 5
C9) 我熟悉我正在居住的地區(南區) 1 2 3 4 5
C10) 整體嚟講您覺得自己目前嘅生活有幾幸福
(1) 非常幸福
(2) 幸福
(3) 一半半
(4) 大多數唔幸福
(5) 非常唔幸福
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
49
D 對老年人的印象和評價 1 (KAOP)
以下問題係關於對長者嘅印象同評價麻煩您根據過去兩星期嘅實際情況係
六個選項(非常唔同意唔同意少少唔同意同意非常同意)中圈出適合
嘅答
例如您對於ldquo老年人在社會上是個負擔rdquo呢個觀點有ldquo少少唔同意rdquo就係
ldquo少少唔同意rdquo下面嘅方格圈出答案
例題老年人係社會上係個負擔
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
1 2 3 4 5 6
非
常
唔
同
意
唔
同
意
少
少
唔
同
意
少
少
同
意
同
意
非
常
同
意
D1) 長者應該住係安老院舍 1 2 3 4 5 6
D2) 長者成日犯錯容易令人嬲 1 2 3 4 5 6
D3) 長者容易令人覺得唔舒服 1 2 3 4 5 6
D4) 長者成日鐘意講起佢哋嘅陳年舊事令人好反
感
1 2 3 4 5 6
D5) 長者脾氣唔好鐘意抱怨對人都唔友善 1 2 3 4 5 6
D6) 長者總係睇年輕人唔順眼 1 2 3 4 5 6
D7) 長者總係理其他人嘅閒事 1 2 3 4 5 6
D8) 長者嘅屋企一般係殘破不堪 1 2 3 4 5 6
D9) 長者不修邊幅好邋遢 1 2 3 4 5 6
D10) 同其他人比長者唔需要更多嘅關愛 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
50
E 步行的難易程度 (只適用 60 歲或以上人士) (Walkability)
以下係一啲您係日常生活中可能需要經常去嘅地方麻煩您
由屋企出發您係咪可以唔太辛苦咁行到去(請根據受訪
者嘅答案係 E20 同 E21 填下面分類嘅編號如果受訪者答嘅
地點唔適合下面講嘅任何一種類別請填具體名稱)
辛苦 唔辛苦
E1) 便利店或者報刊亭 1 2
E2) 教堂或者其他宗教場所 1 2
E3) 公園或者其他公共休憩場所(戶外健身點) 1 2
E4) 長者地區中心鄰舍中心活動中心社會服務中
心家庭服務中心
1 2
E5) 社區會堂以及其他康樂中心(運動設施劇院等) 1 2
E6) 診所(中西醫以及牙科) 1 2
E7) 藥房 1 2
E8) 酒樓 1 2
E9) 茶餐廳或者快餐店 1 2
E10) 雜貨店 1 2
E11) 街市超級市場 1 2
E12) 圖書館 1 2
E13) 銀行 1 2
E14) 郵局 1 2
E15) 子女的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E16) 朋友的家
(9) 唔適用
1 2
E17) 政府機構(社會保障部房屋署民政署地區辦事
處勞工署職業輔導課等)
1 2
E18) 醫院(急診專科日間照顧中心康復中心等) 1 2
E19) 理髮店 1 2
E20) 過去 1 個月您每日行路去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
E21) 過去 1 個月您經常坐車去嘅三個地方係
1) 2) 3)
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
51
F 體能活動水平
以一星期 (7 日)計算您係過去一個月平均做左以下嘅運動幾多次
回答下面嘅問題麻煩
只係計運動時間持續 10 分鐘或以上嘅運動
只係計餘暇時間做嘅運動 (唔計番工時間做嘅運動同家務)
注意三個類別嘅主要分別係運動嘅強度
平均頻率
(每星期次數)
平均持續時間
(分鐘)
劇烈運動
(心跳加速流汗)
(例如跑步緩步跑健
康舞班 高強度游泳
高強度單車)
F1) 次數
每星期
F2)
分鐘
中等強度運動
(不疲累輕度排汗)
(如快步走打網球騎
單車 游泳跳民族或
流行舞蹈)
F3) 次數
每星期
F4)
分鐘
輕度運動
(輕鬆無汗)
(如步行輕度瑜伽草
地保齡球河邊釣魚)
F5) 次數
每星期
F6)
分鐘
阻力運動
(增強肌力)
(例如重複舉啞鈴舉重
機或阻力帶仰臥起坐
深蹲)
F7) 次數
每星期
F8)
分鐘
F9) 平均一星期(7 日)入面您有定期係餘暇時間做中等或以上強度嘅運動(即係
會出汗心跳加速)
(1) 成日
(2) 有時
(3) 從來都唔會好少
F10) 整體嚟講您有幾滿意您宜家嘅生活
(1) 非常滿意
(2) 滿意
(3) 一半半
(4) 一半唔滿意
(5) 非常唔滿意
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
52
G 標準十二題簡明健康狀況調查表 (SF-12)
說明呢項調查係詢問您對自己健康狀況嘅了解呢項資料記錄您嘅自我感覺
同日常生活嘅情況
麻煩您係方格內填上嚟答每條問題如果您唔肯定點答就按照您嘅理解揀
最合適嘅答案
G1) 整體嚟講您認為您宜家嘅健康狀況是係
(1) 非常好
(2) 很好
(3) 好
(4) 一般 (不過不失)
(5) 差
下面每項係您日常生活中可能做嘅活動以您目前嘅健康狀況您係做呢啲活
動有無受到限制如果有嘅話程度又係點
G2) 中等強度嘅活動例如搬枱用吸塵機吸塵或者洗地板打保齡球或者
打太極拳
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
G3) 上幾層樓梯
(1) 有好大限制
(2) 有少少限制
(3) 無任何限制
以下問題係關於您身體健康狀況同日常活動嘅關係
G4) 過去 4 星期您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您係工作或日常活動中實
際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G5) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為身體健康嘅原因令您嘅
工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
53
G6) 過去 4 星期您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因 (例如感到沮喪或焦慮) 令您係
工作或日常活動中實際做完嘅野比想做嘅少
(1) 無
(2) 有
G7) 過去 4 星期係工作或日常活動中您有無因為情緒方面嘅原因(例如感
到沮喪或焦慮)令您嘅工作或活動受到限制
(1) 無
(2) 有
G8) 過去 4 星期您身體上嘅疼痛對您嘅日常工作 (包括番工同做家務) 有幾大
影響
(1) 完全無影響
(2) 有好少影響
(3) 有部分影響
(4) 有較大影響
(5) 有非常大影響
以下問題係有關您係過去4星期您嘅感受同您其他嘅情況針對每個問題麻
煩您揀一個最接近您嘅感受嘅答案
G9) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺得心平氣和
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G10) 過去 4 星期您有幾多時間覺精力充足
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G11) 過 4 星期您有幾多時間心情唔好覺得悶悶不樂或者沮喪
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
54
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
G12) 過去 4 星期有幾多時間由於您身體健康或情緒問題而妨礙左您嘅社交
活動 (比例如探親戚朋友)
(1) 成日
(2) 大部份時間
(3) 好多時間
(4) 間中
(5) 偶然一次半次
(6) 從來都無沒
問卷完成日期 ( 日 月 年 )
- 「共建長者友善社區」問卷調查完成多謝您嘅寶貴意見 -
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
55
Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Demographic Questionnaire
職員專用 Southern
參加者編號
訪問員(1)
訪問員(2)
A 受訪者資料
A1) 您嘅性別係
(1) 男
(2) 女
A2) 年齡
(根據身份證上的出生年份)
A3) 您喺所屬社區住左幾耐
年
A4) 您嘅婚姻狀況係
(1) 從未結婚
(2) 已婚
(3) 喪偶
(4) 離婚
(5) 分居
A5) 您嘅最高教育程度
(1) 未受教育學前教育(幼稚園)
(2) 小學
(3) 初中(中一至中三)
(4) 高中(中四至中七)
(5) 專上教育文憑證書課程
(6) 專上教育副學位課程
(7) 專上教育學位課程或以上
A6) 您住嘅房屋類型
(1)公共房屋
(2)居屋
(3)私人房屋
(4)分租單位如籠屋板間房床位
(5)宿舍
(6)其他請註明
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
56
A7) 您宜家同邊個住(可以揀多過一項)
(1) 配偶 (2) 子女
(3) 女婿 媳婦 (4) 孫
(5) 父母 (6) 祖父母
(7) 兄弟姐妹 (8) 工人
(9) 其他(請註明)_________ (10) 沒有 (獨居)
A8) 您宜家係
(1) 全職工作
(2) 兼職工作
(3) 失業人士
(4) 退休人士
(5) 料理家務者
(6) 學生
(7) 其他(請註明)____________________
A9) 您宜家拎以下邊一隻嘅政府津貼(只可以揀一項)
(1) 綜援 (CSSA)
$2420 - $ 5850 (成人健全-gt殘疾) $3435 - $ 5850 (長者健全-gt殘疾)
(2) 普通傷殘津貼 $1695
(3) 高額傷殘津貼 $3390
(4) 高齡津貼 (生果金) $1325
(5) 長者生活津貼 (長生津) $2565
(6) 唔清楚 唔知道
(7) 無
A10) 您宜家主要嘅收入來源係(不包括政府津貼) (可以揀多過一項)
(1)保險
(2)退休金
(3)家人及親友資助
(4)工資
(5)儲蓄
(6)其他(請列明________________)
(7)無
A11) 您宜家每月嘅收入 (包括政府津貼及其他收入來源)
(1) 0 (8) 15000 - 19999
(2) 1 - 1999 (9) 20000 - 24999
(3) 2000 - 3999 (10) 25000 - 29999
(4) 4000 - 5999 (11) 30000 - 39999
(5) 6000 - 7999 (12) 40000 - 59999
(6) 8000 - 9999 (13) ge 60000
(7) 10000 - 14999 (14) 唔想講 唔清楚
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
57
Appendix 4 Focus Group Discussion Guide
香港大學秀圃老年研究中心
「共建長者友善社區」計劃 (南區)
聚焦小組
小組簡介
『長者友善』是世界衛生組織在 2002 年提出的概念它建基於積
極老齡化的理論框架認為長者是社會的資源和財富每一位長者
都有權利參與到社會及從身體健康社會參與或人生安全保障等
各方面去獲得最大限度的生活質素而營造一個「長者友善」的城
市更是社會上每一個人的責任香港現時的人口老化迅速為了推
動香港邁向『長者友善』城市之路來迎接老齡化和城市化的挑戰
是次研究會根據世界衛生組織所定下的『長者友善』城市的八個指
標來探討南區的情況
是次聚焦小組旨在了解你對南區居住環境的意見及有關長者的
意見
Part Alceil長者友善rceil總體指標體系的討論
世界衛生組織提倡的『長者友善』城市主要由八個重要指標所以組
成它們涵蓋了包括城市建設環境服務與政策等三大範疇反
映一個城市是否能夠達致『積極老齡化』具體有八個方面包括
戶外空間和房屋建築交通房屋社會參與尊重和社會融合
公民參與與就業溝通和資訊社區支援和健康服務
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report (Southern District)
58
『長者友善』城市的八個重要指標
1 戶外空間和房屋建築這個指標的目的是希望透過建設一個令
人舒適的戶外空間和適合長者居住的房屋設施以增加長者在
家安老的可能性
2 交通交通的便利性會影響長者的活動範圍一個方便使用和
適合長者支付能力的交通安排對長者能否參與社區和公民活
動至關重要
3 房屋由於隨著長者年紀的增加身體活動能力的減退長者能
否居住在擁有合適設施的房屋對長者是否能獨立生活及他們的
生活品質有很大的影響
4 社會參與透過參與在正式或非正的社會活動可以保持令長者
受到支持與關懷因此參與社會與家人和朋友交往是長者獲
得生理和心理健康的有效保障
5 尊重和社會融合尊重長者讓他們能夠成為社會的一分子是每
一個社會的基本責任因此這一目標是讓每一個位長者在不同
的社會環境下都受到尊重包括在社會社區和家庭
6 公民參與就業透過社會參與和就業可以令長者繼續對社會發
揮貢獻這可以是用義務工作的形式也可以是用參與勞動力
市場的形式來達致
7 溝通和資訊社會上有不同種類的服務與支援給予長者然而
要長者瞭解取得所需服務與支援需要透過社會要加強資訊的
透明度和流通性讓長者在最有需要的時候能及時得到可靠的
資訊
8 社區支援和健康服務這一目標是希望透過提升長者的健康與
生活品質以滿足長者在熟悉的社區與在家安老的理想為此
適切的社區支援和健康服務必不可少
Q1就以上『長者友善』城市的八個指標以南區目前的情況而言
哪三個指標是你最想改善的為什麼
Q2哪三個指標是最實際可以改善的為什麼
Q3就以上三項指標而言如何能通過政策設施服務方面改善
從而提高南區在三項指標的表現
Q4針對今天的討論還有沒有其他補充